Women's pastors?

[OzSpen]

Picking a few atypical exceptions does not silence the historical witness of the Church. Christians believe we evaluate the Scripture as a community. It is not everyone in the woods coming up with their own interpretation of the Scripture. This approach has led to heresies and false doctrines, and it should be avoided.

Call this a "logical fallacy" does not make the approach you are endorsing, where you are the final arbiter in matters of truth, any less irresponsible. It would be like someone today coming up with opinions without any reference to commentaries and scholarship. The witness of the Church is very important.

To appeal to tradition, 1900 years of tradition, instead of dealing with the issue at hand and the exegesis of the text is practising a fallacy of 'Appeal to common practice'.

I will not be repeating what you are doing with the continuation of denial of what you are doing. Can't you see that what is happening here is making it impossible to have a logical conversation. That's what happens when anyone commits a logical fallacy.

When will you quit flaming me with a statement such as this? 'where you are the final arbiter in matters of truth'. I have spent hours exegeting the Scriptures of I Cor 12-14 and 1 Tim 2:11-15 to provide biblical exegetical answers and you have the audacity to say that I'm 'the final arbiter in matters of truth'. This is lying about me and what I've been doing on this forum on this topic. I ask you to repent of this sin against me.

Oz

 

[abacabb3]

Calm down. No one is flaming you. No one is appealing strictly to common practice. Rather, no orthodox Christians at any time made claims strictly from the Scripture irrespective of tradition. Scripture is our sole authority, but tradition let's us know whether are not we are interpreting it right.

Luther used tradition as a resource. Calvin did. Augustine did. Spurgeon did. What you cannot find is someone who paid no attention to tradition and was not a heretic.

My point is there is nothing Christian historically about denying tradition altogether. The Scripture speaks of God giving teachers to the CHurch. More importantly, Jesus said the Holy SPirit will lead us into all truth.

You are saying that for most of Christian history, on this pretty clear issue, everyone got it wrong. SO, the Holy SPirit did not do what He was supposed to do. My question to you is, how does John 16:13 make sense with your contention?

 

[twin1954]

To appeal to tradition, 1900 years of tradition, instead of dealing with the issue at hand and the exegesis of the text is practising a fallacy of 'Appeal to common practice'.

I will not be repeating what you are doing with the continuation of denial of what you are doing. Can't you see that what is happening here is making it impossible to have a logical conversation. That's what happens when anyone commits a logical fallacy.

When will you quit flaming me with a statement such as this? 'where you are the final arbiter in matters of truth'. I have spent hours exegeting the Scriptures of I Cor 12-14 and 1 Tim 2:11-15 to provide biblical exegetical answers and you have the audacity to say that I'm 'the final arbiter in matters of truth'. This is lying about me and what I've been doing on this forum on this topic. I ask you to repent of this sin against me.

Oz

It doesn't matter how many hours you have spent your "exegeses" is eisegesis. You break one of the basic and first rules of hermeneutics, you interpret the clear from, or by, the unclear. That is in itself a logical fallacy. If that is how you and Blue were taught hermeneutics I would ask for my money back.

When you begin to interpret the Scriptures in a logical and truly exegetical manner then perhaps you can have a conversation in which you will not cry and complain about being flamed and sinned against.

 

[Bluelion]

Calm down. No one is flaming you. No one is appealing strictly to common practice. Rather, no orthodox Christians at any time made claims strictly from the Scripture irrespective of tradition. Scripture is our sole authority, but tradition let's us know whether are not we are interpreting it right.

Luther used tradition as a resource. Calvin did. Augustine did. Spurgeon did. What you cannot find is someone who paid no attention to tradition and was not a heretic.

My point is there is nothing Christian historically about denying tradition altogether. The Scripture speaks of God giving teachers to the CHurch. More importantly, Jesus said the Holy SPirit will lead us into all truth.

You are saying that for most of Christian history, on this pretty clear issue, everyone got it wrong. SO, the Holy SPirit did not do what He was supposed to do. My question to you is, how does John 16:13 make sense with your contention?

oz,
you like how he says he is not committing that fallcies and then does it again. and then commits a new one.

here is the fallacy I said they were committing. APPEAL TO TRADITION: (don't rock the boat or ad verecundiam) based on the principle of "letting sleeping dogs lie". We should continue to do things as they have been done in the past. We shouldn't challenge time-honored customs or traditions.

Now tell me that is not what they are saying?

Also this one. APPEAL TO IGNORANCE: (argumentum ad ignorantiam) attempts to use an opponent's inability to disprove a conclusion as proof of the validity of the conclusion, i.e. "You can't prove I'm wrong, so I must be right."

although I think it has been disprove.

also he just did this fallacy in his argument.

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY: (ipse dixit also called ad verecundiam sometimes) attempts to justify an argument by citing a highly admired or well-known (but not necessarily qualified) figure who supports the conclusion being offered.

Oh but no they are not using fallacies.

 

[Bluelion]

It doesn't matter how many hours you have spent your "exegeses" is eisegesis. You break one of the basic and first rules of hermeneutics, you interpret the clear from, or by, the unclear. That is in itself a logical fallacy. If that is how you and Blue were taught hermeneutics I would ask for my money back.

When you begin to interpret the Scriptures in a logical and truly exegetical manner then perhaps you can have a conversation in which you will not cry and complain about being flamed and sinned against.

yeah and you just committed the ad hominem fallacy

 

[twin1954]

yeah and you just committed the ad hominem fallacy

Nonsense! Please point out to me how what I said was an ad hominem fallacy. Otherwise all you are doing is making accusations without merit. Perhaps doing so will assist you in actually understanding what the logical fallacies are.

 

[twin1954]

Lets do a simple syllogism of your arguments.

Deborah was a judge in Israel.
Junia may or may not have been a women.
Junia may or may not have been an Apostle.

Therefore Paul was saying that women can be pastors.

 

[Bluelion]

Nonsense! Please point out to me how what I said was an ad hominem fallacy. Otherwise all you are doing is making accusations without merit. Perhaps doing so will assist you in actually understanding what the logical fallacies are.

you said.
If that is how you and Blue were taught hermeneutics I would ask for my money back.

this is what that fallacy is.

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

and yopu just did it a second time in this post.

 

[Bluelion]

Lets do a simple syllogism of your arguments.

Deborah was a judge in Israel.
Junia may or may not have been a women.
Junia may or may not have been an Apostle.

Therefore Paul was saying that women can be pastors.

who are you talking to?

Deborah was a Judge= Judges were raised up to lead Israel out of bondage= there for Deborah had authority over men and was given it by God. SHe was a Spiritual leader.

 

[twin1954]

who are you talking to?

Both you and Oz.

Deborah was a Judge= Judges were raised up to lead Israel out of bondage= there for Deborah had authority over men and was given it by God. SHe was a Spiritual leader.

So one instance, which of course you ignore and dismiss the explanation for it, negates the clear and unmistakable statements of Paul?

Talk about faulty logic.

 

[Bluelion]

Both you and Oz.

So one instance, which of course you ignore and dismiss the explanation for it, negates the clear and unmistakable statements of Paul?

Talk about faulty logic.

you really can not argue a point can you all you do is give this same fallacy.

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

 

[abacabb3]

In internet arguments, those who bring up anything with the word "ad xxx" argument usually are the ones who don't have an actual response to the point being made. The fact that 15 pages later, that you and Oz cannot get passed the idea that such arguments aren't being made, reflects very poorly of both of your reading comprehension, or much more likely, your ability intellectually to actually address the point in any real way other than ignoring it.

 

[twin1954]

you said.
If that is how you and Blue were taught hermeneutics I would ask for my money back.

this is what that fallacy is.

ad hominem: Latin for "to the man." An arguer who uses ad hominems attacks the person instead of the argument. Whenever an arguer cannot defend his position with evidence, facts or reason, he or she may resort to attacking an opponent either through: labeling, straw man arguments, name calling, offensive remarks and anger.

and yopu just did it a second time in this post.

Of course you didn't grasp the subtly of my actually committing the ad hominem fallacy for your benefit. I did it on purpose.

But more to the point you again ignore that I actually dealt with your, as in yours and Oz's, arguments which you apparently can't answer. If you could you would.

 

[OzSpen]

Calm down. No one is flaming you.

You ARE flaming me with this language: 'you are the final arbiter in matters of truth'. Please stop it and repent of it.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

In internet arguments, those who bring up anything with the word "ad xxx" argument usually are the ones who don't have an actual response to the point being made. The fact that 15 pages later, that you and Oz cannot get passed the idea that such arguments aren't being made, reflects very poorly of both of your reading comprehension, or much more likely, your ability intellectually to actually address the point in any real way other than ignoring it.

You are flaming me again with this language: 'reflects very poorly of both of your reading comprehension, or much more likely, your ability intellectually to actually address the point'.

Please stop it and repent.

 

[abacabb3]

You post twice more, and still haven't actually intellectually addressed my point. I am not making a false accusation when I say there only one of two possible things you are doing (not understanding or not having an intellectually respectable way to respond.) Rather, it is a clear statement of facts. I have nothing personal against you. However, you are avoiding something that is very crucial and it is a principle that has prevented Christian heresy for 2,000 years. The fact you don't want to address the point is concerning to say the least.

If this fact hurts your feels, I am sorry but I cannot recant. I don't want you to be one the wrong side of history.

 

[OzSpen]

You post twice more, and still haven't actually intellectually addressed my point. I am not making a false accusation when I say there only one of two possible things you are doing (not understanding or not having an intellectually respectable way to respond.) Rather, it is a clear statement of facts. I have nothing personal against you. However, you are avoiding something that is very crucial and it is a principle that has prevented Christian heresy for 2,000 years. The fact you don't want to address the point is concerning to say the least.

If this fact hurts your feels, I am sorry but I cannot recant. I don't want you to be one the wrong side of history.

I have quoted your flaming of me in my last 2 posts. It IS FLAMING. When will you acknowledge what you did, quit it and seek repentance?

If you flame me again, I'll simply report you to the moderators and not respond to you.

 

[abacabb3]

I really don't feel that way, I don't feel angry. Perhaps you can seriously enlighten me, bear with me, because I really don't understand where you are coming from. Do you seriously think the testimony of Christian tradition is entirely meaningless? I have spoken to no serious Christian that has taken this position, so I view it as unchristian in the meantime.

 

[Hammster]

ADMIN HAT ON



Closed for review.


ADMIN HAT OFF

 

[.Mikha'el.]

MOD HAT ON!


Thread permanently closed due to multiple reports of flaming.

Flaming and Harassment
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue. Refrain from insulting, inflammatory, or goading remarks. When you disagree, remember to address the content of the post and not the poster personally.
● If you are flamed, do not respond in-kind. Alert staff to the situation by utilizing the report button.
● Stating or implying that another member or group of members who have identified themselves as Christian are not Christian is not allowed.
● Be considerate and do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.
● Respect another member's request to cease personal contact.

MOD HAT OFF!