Apologist Interview: Alister McGrath - Apologetics 315
Monday, January 31, 2011
Apologist Interview: Alister McGrath - Apologetics 315
Apologist Interview: Alister McGrath - Apologetics 315
FacePalm of the Day #54 - Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day
Given the proliferation of religious delusions that seem to be growing around the globe in an age of weapons of mass destruction, atheists must start breeding like rabbits. ;-)
I'd like to assume he is just making a joke but it is to stupid that it just isn't funny. It made me wonder if he really knows deep down abortion is wrong. If a person claims to be religious and still thinks that abortion is not wrong than they are being inconsistent. However the reason why an atheist has little problem with abortion because according to their world view the unborn child is not a person and therefore not worth the same as a born human being. I admit if life doesn't begin at conception, and if there is no soul or minds that transcend death then maybe they have a point. After all if the mind and brain are the same thing, how can a fetus have a mind if it doesn't yet have a brain? This is one of the reason that, by definition, atheists must discount the unborn as human beings. However there is a point to consider: If atheists do have more children they will be obeying the divine mandate to be fruitful and multiply and giving us more people to share the Gospel with. He also commits the fallacy of thinking that this world would be a better place if everyone agreed with him.
In the comments section, Loftus also wrote:
Eight million Christians killed each other during such wars as the thirty years war, even though your God could've easily settled their disputes since he supposedly had foreknowledge they would do so. Why didn't he communicate through his so-called inspired authors what Christians should believe more clearly?
First, I'd like to know how he came up with the number eight million dying during wars waged by Christians? Second, although he claims to understand history, does Loftus really think the causes of the Thirty and Hundred Years wars all come down to people who disagreed on Biblical Theology? I'm trying really hard not to laugh at such an absurd claim. Third, Why doesn't it occur to Loftus that some of the people who fought in those wars could have ignored God's Word even as he does today?
Debunking Christianity: Quote of the Day
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Which Writings of Luther Did Hitler Use?
Image via Wikipedia
Image via WikipediaJames Swan has posted an interesting article responding to the charge that Hitler was inspired to exterminate Jews because of the work of Martin Luther. Yeah, I laughed too, but there are people who really think that is a worthy argument to understand what happened in Nazi Germany and why it happened.
Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Which Writings of Luther Did Hitler Use?
Henry Cavill to Star as The Man of Steel in Zack Snyder's 'Superman' Reboot - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Henry Cavill to Star as The Man of Steel in Zack Snyder's 'Superman' Reboot - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
Henry Cavill Is Your New Superman
Henry Cavill Cast as Superman Man of Steel
My Common Sense is Tingling - Debunking Christianity: At What Point Would YOU Walk Out On An Ice Covered Lake?
I'm amazed when Christians argue their faith is more probably true than not, and then try to live as if they're 100% certain of it. So let's grant them a 51% probability that their brand of Christianity is true. Now to put this into perspective, would they walk out on an ice covered lake if there was only a 51% probability the ice would hold them up? ;-)
It is an interesting analogy that depends on the idea that one would not walk out on an ice covered lake unless they were 100% certain they would not fall through the ice. But who is really on thin ice - the Christian or the Atheist? If a person falls into the ice, they either drown or freeze to death. If a Christian is wrong (falls through the ice) there is no repercussions or bad consequences - he/she merely ceases to exist. What if the atheist has over-estimated the thickness of the ice on which he/she stands? They go hell which is equivalent to freezing to death and drowning - except it never ends.
Christians are not alone in standing on the ice. We have many witnesses that the ice on which we stand is thick enough hold our weight.
1 Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. 3 Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart. - Hebrews 12:1-3
Let us try to look at this analogy from a more Biblical perspective. We are already in the water drowning and freezing to death from the start. We were born on thin ice and have been fallen in. Jesus pulls his people out of the freezing water and puts us out solid ground! The unregenerate sinner isn't on thin ice, he/she is drowning and freezing to death and some don't even realize it. It takes a revelation from God to get free.
28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.- Romans 1:28-32
Debunking Christianity: At What Point Would YOU Walk Out On An Ice Covered Lake?
Saturday, January 29, 2011
FacePalm of the Day #53 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: 12 Year Old Child Bride In The New Testament
It's quite sad and hurtful to find many of those who have anger issues towards Islam and hatred towards the prophet of Allah (may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) will heap up animosity upon him over a practice that was very common in that age. Namely that God has never stipulated an age in the Torah, TNCH, New Testament or the Qur'an that a person can or cannot marry.
And then he quotes one of my favorite scriptures.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding"
(Proverbs 3:5)
I agree with him that Bible does not tells us at what age a person should be married. But why is he bringing this up? There is an objection raised against the founder of Islam, Muhammad, that when he was in his 50's he married and had sex with a 7 year-old girl. Most Muslims who live in the West try to explain this away by saying that Muhammad never did this. Others, especially some fundamentalist Muslims, actually practice marry prepubescent girls (see this article). But thegrandverbalizer's approach is one that I have never seen before and truly Facepalm worthy: argue that the prophetess Anna was married when she was a Child.
He tries to argue that there is ambiguity among various English Translations of Luke 2:36:
New International Version (©1984)
There was also a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage,
New Living Translation (©2007)
Anna, a prophet, was also there in the Temple. She was the daughter of Phanuel from the tribe of Asher, and she was very old. Her husband died when they had been married only seven years.
English Standard Version (©2001)
And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin,
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
And there was a prophetess, Anna the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years and had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage,
International Standard Version (©2008)
Now Anna, a prophetess, was also there. She was a descendant of Phanuel from the tribe of Asher. She was very old, having lived with her husband for seven years after her marriage,
GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
Anna, a prophet, was also there. She was a descendant of Phanuel from the tribe of Asher. She was now very old. Her husband had died seven years after they were married,
I don't think that the text is ambiguous at all. Anna was a widow. She was a descendant of Phanuel from the Tribe of Asher. She was very old and her husband had died after only 7 years. I see nothing in either translation saying anything different than these facts. Why does thegrandverbalizer want there to be ambiguity in a text that is clear as a Summer's day? It is so that he can make the following argument:
So she lived with her husband for 7 years FROM THE TIME she was a virgin? So when was that? Like when was she a virgin? Or better yet since when was she not a virgin? If you look at the way the text is constructed here you can understand it that she has always been a virgin (and than it is assumed she is no longer after marriage). In otherwords she was married at age 7/8.
What?!? In first century Jewish culture, a woman was supposed to remain a virgin until she was married (men too). I see absolutely nothing in either translation to give the impression that Anna was seven or eight when she married her husband. Look at how thegrandverbalizer tries to continue his arguments.
All these translations ultimately point to the fact that the Christians are either uncertain about the original Koine Greek Text or that someone is trying to shield a fact from the masses.
thegrandverbalizer has failed to show that Luke 2:36 can be construed to show that Anna was 7/8 years of age when she got married. Then he tries to make the suggestion of conspiracy to hide "facts" from people.
I believe in the latter, because from the times of European domination of Muslim lands, many orientalist have tried everything they can to demean the charachter of the Prophet Muhammed (saw).
If marrying pre-pubescent girls is morally defensible why does alleging that Muhammad did it demean his character? As a Christian, I would argue that there is an objective moral standard rooted in the nature of our Creator Himself. I would think Muslims would agree. So the question to ask is this: Is it consistent with God's character for an adult to marry a child and expect the same responsibilities and needs as an from another adult? If marrying a child is good, then why is homosexual marriage wrong, which Islam affirms is wrong? Vice Versa? I'd argue that marrying a child is just as outside the definition of "marriage" as it would be to marry someone of the same-sex.
It is very clear to those who have eyes that can see that Anna was at least 7/8 years of age at the time of her marriage if not no more than 12 years of age can be agreed upon. This is in the New Testament, the Holy Spirit did not inspire to write down "and by the way this practice was wrong or is wrong"
There is nothing in the text that tells us how old Anna was when she got married. I find the argument that something must be okay if scripture does not tell us is wrong to be very problematic. Anyone with some level of maturity knows how bad things work out if you carry out any kind of relationship that way. The "Well, you didn't say I couldn't do it" mentality always lead to problems. It's presumptuous to assume you don't need to ask permission.
There is no disgust and no reprimand any where in this text. You would think if the idea of a girl being 12 or 9 years of age getting married was so morally repugnant to the creator that there would have been some clear law stipulating an appropriate age for marriage.
I would remind thegrandverbalizer that people use arguments like these to say that the Bible and the Qur'an condones slavery because neither text says that Slavery is wrong. Do we really want to go down the road that says that marrying and having sex with children because Muhammad may have done it and God did not tell us not to do it? I don't. Thegrandverbalizer has posted many stories of people claiming to be Christians molesting children. He is right in condemning such evil. But if it's okay to marry and have sex with children, then child molesters are only guilty of rape (bad enough).
Instead the Creator in infinite wisdom allowed this to be dictated by local cultures, customs and practice.
How does thegrandverbalizer know that God has allowed the age at which people get married be dictated by local cultures, custom, and practice? I'd argue that this mindset is what has led to a 50% divorce rate in the West. So the question remains, how does thegrandverbalizer know that God is alright with people marrying children? And would it be okay for an adult woman to marry a 7 or 8 year-old boy? Why would it seem to be only okay for little girls? There is no really good reason to allow for such practices. Would I allow an adult marry my daughter or son while they are still children? Not while I'm still breathing. I reject moral relativism. Somethings are just wrong because they are wrong and no matter who does them and when. Just because God allows something to happen does not mean He condones it or commands us to do it.
I have two examples: Divorce and a statement that puts light to questions such as these.
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”
11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.” - Matthew 19:7-12
Jesus clearly taught that divorce is not ultimately God's will, but God allows it because of our limitations not God's. We know that God hates divorce.
“The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the LORD Almighty. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful. - Malachi 2:16
Divorce is not the only thing we do that God used to give us grace about and not bring judgment against us right away. I would lump the way we demean and misdefine marriage to suit us instead of how God defines it as some of those things. Judgment will definitely come.
29Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device.
30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
31Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead. - Acts 17:29-31
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: 12 Year Old Child Bride In The New Testament
Two Apologetics Blogs to Follow - Apologetics 315
Faithful Thinkers
Case for Christianity
Two Apologetics Blogs to Follow - Apologetics 315
Friday, January 28, 2011
The Beauty of Mathematics - Inspirational Videos - GodTube
The Beauty of Mathematics - Inspirational Videos - GodTube
Common Sense Is Tingling: Debunking Christianity: My Responses to a Christian Scholar
I have not seen very many posts from John Loftus where he takes something written by a Christian Scholar and respond to portions of it. To be fair, he doesn't say who the scholar is but that doesn't really matter. I'd suggest reading the post to see how Loftus thinks and argues. Your common sense should be going off like fire alarms. He doesn't raise anything new or interesting to object or argue about because his points have already been answered elsewhere. Instead I'd like to comment on something he says at the end. Quoting the scholar, and then making his comments (in bold), Loftus posted:If it was not the remarkable person of Jesus of Nazareth himself, culminating in his death and resurrection, what was it? They shrug and say they don't know. Something happened.This is a gross mischaracterization. Plenty of views have been suggested, as I do. The visionary basis for the view Jesus arose from the dead beginning with either Peter or Mary Magdalene works just fine. But non-believers emphatically do not have to propose an alternative scenario at all. A historian can look at an argument purporting to show what happened at Custer’s Last Stand and say that scenario is improbable without having to suggest a better one. It could well be that there isn’t enough evidence to say one way or another after showing one such scenario is improbable.
Loftus suggests that as long as non-believers can show that Jesus' Resurrection is improbable, they don't need to propose alternate scenarios to explain the historical facts that we do have. We don't have a single account of Peter seeing Jesus when he was alone. And last I checked there is proof of groups of people experiencing the same vision or dream at the same time and most of the accounts we do have of people seeing the risen Christ it was in groups of two or more people simultaneously. The only glaring exceptions are Mary Magdalene and Apostle Paul. I point this out because I wonder if Loftus and other non-believers think that they don't need to offer better plausible explanations for the historical evidences of the Resurrection, why do they keep falling all over themselves offering alternate scenarios other than the one the Bible gives? The other problem is none of the alternate explanations are good explanations! It something is not improbable then it can't be miraculous. Something can really happen and be true yet seem improbable or even seem impossible. If you ever seen what happen to liquid helium in room temperature, you'll have an idea of what I mean. Loftus and other non-believers have failed to offer alternate scenarios to explain what happened the Sunday after Jesus' crucifixion and calling the Resurrection improbable adds nothing to the discussion because all miracles are improbable and tells us nothing about whether or not it happened. That is why such events are called "miracles".Debunking Christianity: My Responses to a Christian Scholar
Ken Samples New Blog: Reflections - Apologetics 315
Ken Samples New Blog: Reflections - Apologetics 315
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Debate: Assurance of Salvation in Islam and Christianity
I think that this is the debate that White never wanted to have with fellow Christian Dan Corner and that is on the subject of OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved) or the believers security.
The doctrine "Once Saved Always Saved" is not the same thing as the Reformed doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints" or "Eternal security". OSAS carries with it a stigma of "cheap" grace. People start thinking that they can live any kind of way and still go to heaven because they are saved. This is not what the Bible teaches. True a born-again and regenerate human being can't be lost. This is something God does. However he does that in changing an individual on such a fundamental level that he or she does not want to live any kind of way anymore but desire to live a life for Jesus. The assurance comes from the Fact that the one who saved us is more than able to keep us. In my opinion, such a debate can be confusing if there isn't a clear distinction being made. It's my understanding that Dan Corner does not want to make that distinction.
That is really in a nut shell what it boils down to.
The Calvinist has a certain degree of security based only on two presuppositions.
1) That their theology is the correct theology.
2) That their works and outward manifestation of a Christ centered life is really the works of a regenerate person and not someone who has been deceived by God with evanscent grace.
Actually that isn't true. If Arminians are correct then I am just as saved as I am if the Calvinists are correct. They agree that we are saved by grace and God holds all accountable for their sins! What they disagree on is the how of we respond to that grace: is it on our own and does God have to enable us apart from our will? In the final analysis which ever is correct - I'm saved. Here is the difference between a regenerate person and one who isn't is that the works will not stop. The faith will not stop. God deceives no one. According to Arminians, the Prevenient grace (I think that this is what thegrandverbalizer meant by "evanscent") given by God and available to all human beings is not until salvation - no. It's just enough grace for a person to be able to decide to be saved or reject Jesus.
Here is a playlist of the debate
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Debate: Assurance of Salvation in Islam and Christianity
Clay Jones Interview: The Crusades - part 2 - Apologetics 315
Today's interview is the second of a series of three short podcasts (see part one here) dealing with the general perception of the Crusades, what the Crusades were, motivations behind them, Augustine's concept of "just war," the atrocities of the Crusades, and their overall outcome.
Clay Jones Interview: The Crusades - part 2 - Apologetics 315
THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Responding to Dhorpatan's critique of Christian epistemology
THE APOLOGETIC FRONT: Responding to Dhorpatan's critique of Christian epistemology
'Diagram for Delinquents' Doc Focuses on Fredric Wertham, Comics' Most Hated Man - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
'Diagram for Delinquents' Doc Focuses on Fredric Wertham, Comics' Most Hated Man - ComicsAlliance | Comics culture, news, humor, commentary, and reviews
The Dunamis Word: The Nephilim Pt. 1
Rather than look at biblical chronology examining the nephilim, I thought it best to look at some nephilim (tyrannical giants) that have developed in modern times. These men rejected salvation through Jesus and told the public that salvation was only offered through them, and obedience to their words. Some, who have examined their lives, say that they were mentally ill. I can only say that persons can't exalt themselves, blaspheme God and expect to remain sane.
His series of articles will focus on:
Elder Burnett is not shy about naming names. I appreciate that in him. Of course these men have gone on to their....um....reward, but there are still such people today working against God's kingdom. I can't wait for the next part.Rev. Major Jealous Divine aka: "Father Divine"Bishop CM. "Sweet Daddy" GraceRev. Jim JonesRev. Frederick "Ike" Eikerenkoetter
The Dunamis Word: The Nephilim Pt. 1
FacePalm of the Day -#52 - Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Does The Christian Heaven Have a Place For Women?
I was recently thinking sincerely about this very issue. It seems that Christianity is a bit ambigous over who 'the elect are'. Many people will say that Jesus died for 'all'. However as Calvinist are quick to point out that this is not the case. Jesus only died for a few 'elect' whom they believe God capriciously chosen before the foundations of the world.
No Bible-believing Christian thinks that God does anything capriciously. Let us look at what "capriciously" means "Given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior". This doesn't describe the eternal unchangeable character of God described in the New Testament. Maybe it does describe the Allah of the Qur'an but not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob who sent Jesus to be the propitiation for our sins. The elect were chosen by God through nothing they have done of their own or in their own power. Everyone is shaped in iniquity and deserving of hell and on our way there. How can God choosing to save some of us, without rejecting anyone, be an example capriciousness while that election is predestined, eternal, and cannot be undone? Simple: it's not capricious,
With that said text in the New Testament that tend to generalize salvation or promises of heaven to all can no longer be taken at face value or for granted.
The New Testament promises salvation to all who believes in Christ. No one can come to the son unless they are drawn by the Father (John 6:44).
Let's see if he can substantiate that.
For example within the Trinity itself God's self-love is only expressed in an eternal relationship of Masculine self-love. God -The Father, whom loves God-The Son. God -the Holy Spirit is a conduit of this love.
God the Father and the God the Holy Spirit are not Masculine. It's a category mistake to mix these things. It's amazing to me the way thegrandverbalizer mixes these things up and then wonders why it doesn't make sense.
Now it is interesting within the Trinity there is no concept of Feminine self-love expressed any where. There is no Mother and no Daughter in the Trinity.
There isn't any real concept of "masuline self-love" in the Trinity either.
Now we can understand that God not necessarily need be masculine, yet how unfortunate that the concept of God dwelling in community of eternal self-love includes only manifestations of the masculine.
Huh?
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.(John 16:13)-The Holy Spirit is expressed here in terms of the masculine.
The word translated "he" in this text, transliterated Ekeinos, means "he, she it, etc." This means that thinking of the Holy Spirit in a masculine way misses the meaning of the text. Often times in old English "he" did not now just refer to just men.
What about heaven is there a place for Christian women?Alongside men.
Do keep in mind that there are some very negative sentiments towards women in general in the Bible.
This ought to be good.
"I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare....while I was still searching but not finding, I found one upright man among a thousand but not one upright woman among them all" (Ecclesiastes 7:26-28).
Context please. Is the text referring to all women? Notice he didn't give the entire passage.
26 I find more bitter than death
the woman who is a snare,
whose heart is a trap
and whose hands are chains.
The man who pleases God will escape her,
but the sinner she will ensnare.
27 “Look,” says the Teacher,[a] “this is what I have discovered:
“Adding one thing to another to discover the scheme of things—
28 while I was still searching
but not finding—
I found one upright man among a thousand,
but not one upright woman among them all.
Why think this passage is saying that there are no upright women? Keep in mind that the Bible also tells us of the righteousness of many women by name. It's impossible to honestly make the argument that the Bible teaches that men are more righteous than women.
No wickedness comes anywhere near the wickedness of a woman.....Sin began with a woman and thanks to her we all must die" (Ecclesiasticus 25:19,24).
Ecclesiasticus is not even part of the cannon and I can't find any compelling reason to think of Ecclesiasticus as inspired scripture. The ,majority of Christians don't either. I don't even know why thegrandverbalizer would bring it up.
St. Tertullian is reported to have said,
St. Tertullian was not speaking under the inspiration of God. He doesn't speak of what I believe nor does scripture substantiate his words.
"As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (I Corinthians 14:34-35) we have no record of Jesus calling Mary, Mother.
I've written an article about 1st Corinthians 14:34-35 and about what it means for women's rights using a parallel passage in 1 Timothy 2:11. What does pointing out no quotes of Jesus calling Mary "Mother" prove? Nothing.
John 2:1-5 [1] And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: [2] And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. [3] And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. [4] Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. [5] His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
How beautiful, loving and intimate it would have used the word 'mother' instead of just 'woman'.
So is thegrandverbalizer saying that the same Jesus in the Qur'an said and acted this way in John 2:1-5? If so then is he saying that Jesus behaved in an unloving way to his own mother? I hope not. Because I see nothing in the text or in the Qur'an denigrating Mary.
Gal 3:26-29 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
(Now the above passage is simply talking about status in the mystical union Christians have in Christ).
Not just about our union with Christ it's talking about our equality with one another in God's sight. It's saying that both men and women are heirs to God's promises.
There is still rank in the Earth. Notice the Holy Spirit informs us that women rank below men.
But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. (1 Corinthians 11:3)
The ranking is in terms of role and not a statement of ontological value. It's not saying that women are less valuable than men. If the verse says that men being the head makes women inferior than it is also saying that God the Son is inferior to God the Father. This interpretation supports Islam not Christianity and does not correspond to what what the text says. This passage is pack with substantive thoughts. Being the "head" is not about being served its about serving those who follow you. Jesus came to us as a servant ministering to our needs and this is the picture given to the relationship between a husband and his wife.
The command was not just binding on slaves but also on masters. The context is missing.
5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.What do we have here? This passage far from tells people that slaves are less than their masters. It not only admonishes slaves but their masters also treat each other as equals serving one another as if they are serving God.
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.- Ephesians 6:5-9
We (believers) shall be like Him (Jesus): All Christians transformed into Sons of God.
1Jn:3:2. Beloved, now we are now the sons of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.
1Jn:3:3: And everyone who has this hope in Him purifies himself, just as He is pure.
Comments: One thing you will learn very quickly is that this 'we' quickly becomes a reference to men only. Notice it says that 'we' shall be like him. When it says 'everyone' this again is a reference only to men. It says who purifies 'himself' just as he is pure.
There is nothing in the text excludes women. None of the pronouns or adjectives in the passage that refers to believers exclude women. Go to this link and check out the Greek words referring to believers in this passage yourself and see that none of them are exclusively masculine nor needs to be understood that way.
What is the proof that the children of God are not daughters but sons? The New Testament is replete with evidence of it.
Let's see if thegrandverbalizer can deliver proof of this conclusion.
Eph:1:4-5. just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will...
He (God) chose 'us' as adoption as sons...not daughters!
I'm not sure what translation thegrandverbalizer is using but I see the KJV rendering this as
4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: 5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,
Not only does this verse clearly teaches predestined election, but it is also clearly not excluding women. In old English, mixed gender groups were often referred to collectively using masculine personal pronouns. This is all this is. No proof that women are not included in salvation here.
John 1:12- 13. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become the sons of God, even to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
Again this verse can't be used to prove thegrandverbalizer conclusion because the "sons of God" cannot be restricted to men only. Check out the Greek word for yourself under "sons" at this link.
1 John 3:1. Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called the sons of God ! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him.
Looking up "sons of God" here give you the same results as for John 1:12,13. Check out this link.
Rom:8:15: For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father.
Rom:8:14: For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
Hosea 1:10 "Yet the Israelites will be like the sand on the seashore, which cannot be measured or counted. In the place where it was said to them, 'You are not my people,' they will be called 'sons of the living God.'
Comments: Now some may muse that 'Israelites' here would be a reference to both men and women. However it is not women who were created to become the sons of God. Women were simply created for the good pleasure of men.
No where does the Bible say women were created for the good pleasure of men. Also Romans 8:13-14 does not restrict believers to only men. Just look up the Greek and see that there is nothing in the language excluding women. As for Hosea 1:10 the Hebrew word translated "sons" is obviously plural and in that form both men and women are included.
The New Testament affirms this when it says,
"neither was man created for woman, but woman for man." (1 Corinthians 11:9)
"A man is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man."
(1 Corinthians 11:7)
These passages are not describing the only purpose of women to be serving men. 1st Corinthians 11 is talking about the order of creation - showing how the roles of men and women are symbolic of Jesus and the Church. This isn't a discussion of ontological value in the slightest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Huh?
John 1:7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe.
Paul says quite clearly about who God wants saved, and who he sent his Son for, in 1 Tim. 2:4-6:
4who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time.
"For to this end we toil and strive, because we have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe." (1 Timothy 4:10)
There is nothing in these verses that exclude women. Look up the word translated "men".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The children of God are never 'daughters of God' they are always 'sons of God'.
Romans 8:14-19
14 For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. 15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” 16 The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. 17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. 18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.
Comments: All the men will be able to share in the glory of God and Christ. The glory of God and Christ both of whom are masculine presence. In the passage above 'God's children'and 'sons of God' are used interchangeably. God's children are his sons. They are never his daughters!
No verse in the Bible says that God's Children are never daughters. The Greek and Hebrew languages don't bear this out.
Galatians 3:26 You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,
Again "sons" does not exclude women. It's not the Bible's fault that we don't have such a pronoun in English that grammatically fits that verse including both genders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 John 3:10 This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
So I guess thegrandverbalizer thinks that Christians believe they have to love their brothers but hate their sisters? I hope not. That would be stupid. Obviously the verse is not excluding women although thegrandverbalizer is trying to twist it into a pretzel to get that conclusion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads. (Revelation 14:1)
No one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. 4 These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins(parthenos). They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among mankind and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb. (Revelation 14:3-5)
Not one of the 144,000 is a woman! No women are ever mentioned to be in the kingdom of heaven! In Christianity as explained above women are created for men not for the glory of God.
Remember it says "who did not defile themselves with women" -This also means sex in marriage. Men are created for heaven as they reflect ultimately the glory of God. Women however only reflect the glory of the men as the Bible tells us...
Hold up. The Bible does not say that only 144,000 people are going to heaven. That's Jehovah Witness dogma not Bible teaching.
9 After this I looked, and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and before the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands. - Revelation 7:9.
Who says that sex with your wife defiles you in God's eyes? No where in the Bible does it say that. The number of men and women in heaven will be great and a lot more than 144,000.
(1 Corinthians 11:7)
There you have it folks! Jesus was sent to save the men. Those men who accept Jesus will be accepted as God's sons. They will become the sons of God.
There wasn't a single Biblical passage thegrandverbalizer used that substantiated that claim. Women are not excluded from Salvation.
Some modern translations of the Bible have tried to say 'children of God' or they even have gender sensitive Bibles now! They do this to cover up the facts and the truth. That Christianity does not have a heaven for women! In Christianity the ideal scenario is virgin men in mystical union with (The Son (masculine), The Father (masculine) and the Holy Spirit (masculine).
No where does the Bible paint such a picture as this "ideal" in thegrandverbalizer's imagination. As for his charge regarding translations hiding male centeredness, the Greek texts from which the translation come don't exclude women. Therefore at times "children of God" is a more accurate translation.
This is unlike heaven as Allah mentioned in the Qur'an. It is for every one. Men and women! Notice the ambiguous nature in the New Testament as to the salvation and status of women in the hereafter and contrast that with the very crystal clear teachings of the Holy Qur'an!
What ambiguity. Lots of smoke and mirrors were introduced to suggest that either the Bible is not clear about women's salvation but just opening up the Bible and reading it show that this is not true.
"Women shall derive benefit from what they aquired. Ask, therefore, God out of His bounty: behold, God has indeed full knowledge of everything." (Holy Qur'an chapter 4 verse 32)
I'm glad that the Qur'an makes such a statement. I agree. However the Bible does not conflict with the Qur'an on that point. I always find it interesting what verses and passages people use when they are trying to prove a point. I would have like to have seen thegrandverbalizer explain how the following passages support his conclusion that the salvation of women is not a part of Christianity.
7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers. - 1 Peter 3:7
Realize that husbands are called to look after their wives and treat them with dignity not because they are weaker or of lesser value but because they are to submit to and obey their husbands. This passage says that women are heirs with men (they go to heaven too) and if a husband fails to treat his wife considerately, God will ignore his prayers! That is indeed high esteem from God for women.
What about this passage:
15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? - 1 Cor 7:15,16
This passage definitely teaches that a man or a woman can be saved. And thegrandverbalizer admitted that Christians believe that if you are saved you go to heaven. He refutes himself.
Additionally if woman can't be saved or have a value then why were there female deacons and teachers in the early church? Why did Jesus spend his time directly ministering to the needs of women (ie John 4)? The more you look at thegrandverbalizer's thesis the more impressively wrong it is.
I did look at thegrandverbalizer's attempt to get around the Islamic text about the majority of the population of hell are women, but I don't think he managed to prove that wrong than he did trying to shift the discussion to the salvation of women in the Bible. How do you get around this?
Mohammed said, "I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers are women." - Sahih Al Bukhari: Vol. 1:28, 301
Thegrandverbalizer has not managed to explain why would understand that passage any differently.
Islam and Christianity A Common Word: Does The Christian Heaven Have a Place For Women?
