The western world hates PATRIARCHY and the church ignores it. By this are we sinning?

[Eloy Craft]

Where can I find this alleged order?

Again?

 

[Eloy Craft]

think he does not mean order, like a command from a drill sergeant... he means order as in the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relastion to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.

That's right. I should have used the word 'ordained. My apologies for the confusion that caused others. Thank you for clarifying.

 

[Eloy Craft]

Eloy meant an arrangement, I'd say that is an assumption in contradiction to what we see in Genesis 1-3.

Gen. 1 doesn't address the primal social structure of marriage.

 

[Gregorikos]

That's right. I should have used the word 'ordained. My apologies for the confusion that caused others. Thank you for clarifying.

So then you understand my confusion. And from the Biblical text we see that God didn't ordain patriarchy in Genesis 1-2, and that the first mention of anything like it is in Genesis 3:16 and listed as an outcome of our fallen nature.

 

[Eloy Craft]

So then you understand my confusion. And from the Biblical text we see that God didn't ordain patriarchy in Genesis 1-2, and that the first mention of anything like it is in Genesis 3:16 and listed as an outcome of our fallen nature.

Is that true of motherhood too? The environment in which we enter life is what patriarchy serves.

 

[Gregorikos]

Is that true of motherhood too? The environment in which we enter life is what patriarchy serves.

No. Motherhood was instituted in Genesis 1:27-28, before the fall.

 

[Philip_B]

The truths of the Genesis events we all share reduced to subjective meaninglessness. Makes one wonder why anyone thinks it really happened.

Not at all. And I am not sure what 'it' is, however it is clear that we have a world to live in and a biosphere that supports life, there are rivers, lakes and dams, there are fish and birds and animals, there is night and day, and of course there is us - men and women -, and the fact of this clearly suggests that something happened for all of this that is wonderful in creation to have come to be.

As the National Geographic was not even embryonic at the time, we don't have a stroke by stroke account. The purpose of the Genesis Narratives, to my mind, is to show the who was responsible, far more than it how it was accomplished story.

God is not... a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.
Pope Francis 2014 ​

The power and the wonder of the words that ring out against the chaos 'Let there be light' and I don't think that is meaningless.

The point is that the Genesis narratives accept Patriarchy, yet of itself that does not need to imply much. That Patriarchy is accepted in a Patriarchal society is hardly surprising. It does not however prove that Patriarchy is proscribed by God, as it can just as reasonably be understood as descriptive of the society that gives home the the accounts.

And so on this and many issues we all might pray 'Let there be light'

 

[Ohorseman]

So then you understand my confusion. And from the Biblical text we see that God didn't ordain patriarchy in Genesis 1-2, and that the first mention of anything like it is in Genesis 3:16 and listed as an outcome of our fallen nature.

You ignore patriarchal features in the narrative. And the same narrative is devoid of egalitarian features. So, you dismiss it.

Read this again, the ENTIRE post, please. I think Eloy Craft is right to pick that word "order". Certainly, I am no wordsmith, but it just seems to fit, and better than ordained. Order is a bigger and better word here.

or·der
/ˈôrdər/
noun

1. the arrangement or disposition of people or things in relation to each other according to a particular sequence, pattern, or method.

Since woman came out of man he is naturally her lead. He came before her. She is 'of' him. This is ignored or reduced to wasted words to maintain an eisegetical interpretation. Whenever someone does that debating a subject it means the opponent has nothing substantial to refute the point. Let's see, Genesis two is ignored in favor of Genesis one. Paul is reduced or ignored in the same way. That Jesus picked men to be Apostles, would be treated the same way. Seems that's the modus operandi of those opposing biblical patriarchy in this thread. Woman came out of man. That don't mean anything. God speaks to Adam. That don't matter. God made them in His image. Now that's all that matters. God spoke to Eve to make her punishment known. That means God gave her the commandment too. Nope that is very weak. I'd be embarrassed to use it. Intellectual honesty demands that the points made for patriarchy be soundly refuted not reduced to meaninglessness or ignored. I have yet to read a refutation compelling enough , or at all, to seriously consider that patriarchy is not part of God's order.

I hope it is okay that i did that. This post in its entirety is just the best response here.

 

[Ohorseman]

Not at all. And I am not sure what 'it' is, however it is clear that we have a world to live in and a biosphere that supports life, there are rivers, lakes and dams, there are fish and birds and animals, there is night and day, and of course there is us - men and women -, and the fact of this clearly suggests that something happened for all of this that is wonderful in creation to have come to be.

As the National Geographic was not even embryonic at the time, we don't have a stroke by stroke account. The purpose of the Genesis Narratives, to my mind, is to show the who was responsible, far more than it how it was accomplished story.

God is not... a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life. Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve.
Pope Francis 2014 ​

The power and the wonder of the words that ring out against the chaos 'Let there be light' and I don't think that is meaningless.

The point is that the Genesis narratives accept Patriarchy, yet of itself that does not need to imply much. That Patriarchy is accepted in a Patriarchal society is hardly surprising. It does not however prove that Patriarchy is proscribed by God, as it can just as reasonably be understood as descriptive of the society that gives home the the accounts.

And so on this and many issues we all might pray 'Let there be light'

Eloy Craft's "it" is the creation story. Come on, Philip_B... you know that. You are probably the smartest one here, LOL.

Now that I have buttered you up with flattery, please tell me what you think about something. You look East and maybe you are even open to Catholic ways of thinking, based upon things you have said, and you quote the Pope there as well. This comment you made here:

"It does not however prove that Patriarchy is proscribed by God, as it can just as reasonably be understood as descriptive of the society that gives home the the accounts."

Could the features of the curse be like... penance? What are your thoughts about that?

 

[Paidiske]

Yes and I explained my view in that regard in a previous post. You blame the social structure for the failures that God blames us for.

I don't think those are able to be so neatly separated. Our failures create the social structure. But since patriarchy is harmful, it cannot be what God wants. That is the point I can't get past; Christians actively defending as God-ordained an order which harms us.

 

[Philip_B]

Eloy Craft's "it" is the creation story. Come on, Philip_B... you know that. You are probably the smartest one here, LOL.

I believe I made it quite clear what I took 'it' to mean, however I did not wish to over presume and have the argument go off in an unintended direction.

I have not considered the curse as penance, and I am not sure it would be all that helpful. One of the striking things about the fall narrative, is after having been made in the image and after the likeness of God, they want the apple so they can make themselves just like God. In one sense it is about rejecting the gift from God and want to do it for themselves. If you have had children you may recognise that interesting trait in human behaviour. And girls do it just as much as boys!

 

[Gregorikos]

You ignore patriarchal features in the narrative. And the same narrative is devoid of egalitarian features. So, you dismiss it.

Read this again, the ENTIRE post, please. I think Eloy Craft is right to pick that word "order".

The narrative isn't devoid of egalitarian features at all. From the equal dominion mandate to both of them in 1:28, to the equality expressed in "ezer kenedgo" to the taking of Eve from Adam's very flesh and bones - all are egalitarian features.

To overturn that, one would expect a clear statement in chapters 1-2 that plainly set Adam in authority over Eve. We all admit that isn't there.

What was it that Eloy said that you found so compelling? Let's take the time to break down what he said:

Since woman came out of man he is naturally her lead.

Says who?

He came before her. She is 'of' him.

So what? Adam was made from dirt. He is 'of' dirt. Yet God made something far greater from that dirt.

This is ignored or reduced to wasted words tomaintain an eisegetical interpretation.

The lack of self-awareness is stunning here. It is the patriarchists who are eisegeting into Genesis 1-2 the notion of patriarchy when it isn't there.

Whenever someone does that debating a subject it means the opponent has nothing substantial to refute the point.

Right? That's a self-indictment if there ever was one.

Let's see, Genesis two is ignored in favor of Genesis one.

Who does that? The patriarchists do that. I've probably cited Genesis 1 in this thread more than all of you.

Paul is reduced or ignoreded in the same way.

We're talking about Genesis here. I love Paul, but he didn't just make stuff up. His teaching had to be in agreement with the Scriptures already given. (Acts 17:11) That's going to be a problem for your interpretation of Paul if we get into it, but I don't see that as necessary right now.

That Jesus picked men to be Apostles, would be treated the same way.

That's called "whataboutism." I'll just quote Eloy for that: "Whenever someone does that debating a subject it means the opponent has nothing substantial to refute the point."

Jesus did pick men to be the first apostles. I think that was a good move. In a patriarchal society that had no regard for the testimony of women, it would make no sense to choose women to be your primary witnesses. I would have done the same thing. That's a case of choosing the best person for the job, regardless of gender. And that's what egalitarianism says.

Seems that's the modus operandi of those opposing biblical patriarchy in this thread. Woman came out of man. That don't mean anything. God speaks to Adam. That don't matter.

You haven't shown logically why those things should matter. And you haven't overcome the fact that Genesis 1-2 never mentions the man is in authority over Eve.

God made them in His image. Now that's all that matters. God spoke to Eve to make her punishment known. That means God gave her the commandment too. Nope that is very weak. I'd be embarrassed to use it.

So would I. I never have used that argument. Instead, I point to Genesis 1:28-30 to show that God spoke to Eve directly before the fall.

Intellectual honesty demands that the points made for patriarchy be soundly refuted not reduced to meaninglessness or ignored. I have yet to read a refutation compelling enough , or at all, to seriously consider that patriarchy is not what God ordered

Your assumption seems to be that the benefit of the doubt falls on the side of patriarchy. That patriarchy is to be assumed unless it can be refuted. But that isn't the way things work. We should assume God made all creatures equal unless patriarchy can be proven.

There is nothing in any of this worth talking about.

 

[Ohorseman]

The narrative isn't devoid of egalitarian features at all. From the equal dominion mandate to both of them in 1:28,...

"Equal dominion mandate". You add that word equal. To echo things you say: Says who? So what? Eisegeting .

...to the equality expressed in "ezer kenedgo"....

Please tell liberal Wikipedia to catch up with you with your word meaning.
Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia
Copy and paste from there about that word:

The first woman is created out of one of Adam's ribs to be ezer kenegdo (עזר כנגדו‎ ‘êzer kəneḡdō)[83] – a term notably difficult to translate – to the man. Kəneḡdō means "alongside, opposite, a counterpart to him", and ‘êzer means active intervention on behalf of the other person.[84] God's naming of the elements of the cosmos in Genesis 1 illustrated his authority over creation; now the man's naming of the animals (and of Woman) illustrates Adam's authority within creation.[85]
​

SO HERE IS WHERE WE ARE SO FAR. You add the word "equal" to dominion mandate... then you go on to form a belief system around a word that is "difficult to translate". Well, difficult for everyone but you because you just know what that word means, LOL.

... to the taking of Eve from Adam's very flesh and bones - all are egalitarian features.

To overturn that, one would expect a clear statement in chapters 1-2 that plainly set Adam in authority over Eve. We all admit that isn't there.

What was it that Eloy said that you found so compelling? Let's take the time to break down what he said:



Says who?



So what? Adam was made from dirt. He is 'of' dirt. Yet God made something far greater from that dirt.



The lack of self-awareness is stunning here. It is the patriarchists who are eisegeting into Genesis 1-2 the notion of patriarchy when it isn't there.



Right? That's a self-indictment if there ever was one.



Who does that? The patriarchists do that. I've probably cited Genesis 1 in this thread more than all of you.



We're talking about Genesis here. I love Paul, but he didn't just make stuff up. His teaching had to be in agreement with the Scriptures already given. (Acts 17:11) That's going to be a problem for your interpretation of Paul if we get into it, but I don't see that as necessary right now.



That's called "whataboutism." I'll just quote Eloy for that: "Whenever someone does that debating a subject it means the opponent has nothing substantial to refute the point."

Jesus did pick men to be the first apostles. I think that was a good move. In a patriarchal society that had no regard for the testimony of women, it would make no sense to choose women to be your primary witnesses. I would have done the same thing. That's a case of choosing the best person for the job, regardless of gender. And that's what egalitarianism says.



You haven't shown logically why those things should matter. And you haven't overcome the fact that Genesis 1-2 never mentions the man is in authority over Eve.



So would I. I never have used that argument. Instead, I point to Genesis 1:28-30 to show that God spoke to Eve directly before the fall.



Your assumption seems to be that the benefit of the doubt falls on the side of patriarchy. That patriarchy is to be assumed unless it can be refuted. But that isn't the way things work. We should assume God made all creatures equal unless patriarchy can be proven.

There is nothing in any of this worth talking about.

I could have continued, line by line, with a verbal counter punch. But punch is the wrong word. I should say sissy slap. Now, I am not calling you a sissy, LOL. I am talking about all of us. We start looking like two little girls in a slap fight, LOL. It's a bit silly.

Seriously though, it seems to me that our problem is that we have a slightly different understanding of what we mean by equality. I don't think anyone disagrees that we are all equal before God... whether we are referring to man or woman, black or white, right-brained people or left-brained people, healthy or handicapped, etc. We are all equal before God. Yet... we have different roles.

Gender roles, isn't that really what we are arguing about? You yourself acknowledged that the Man and Woman had different roles, even before the curse. Exhibit "A" being that women have babies and men have more testosterone. You and yours believe that the role difference STOPS there. Me and mine believe otherwise. That's the thing, right?

 

[Ohorseman]

To better understand my side, watch this video. This guy is a Christian Orthodox icon maker. He is an artist. So, I connect with how he talks, thinks. I guess we are right brained. We "see" the texts. I can relate. Eloy Craft seems this way. Jonathan Pageau explains hierarchy better than I ever could. Additionally, he views the Bible the way I do. It it is evident that my side sees the Bible differently than your side. Exhibit "A" here, and there are many such exhibits on this thread.

It does not however prove that Patriarchy is proscribed by God, as it can just as reasonably be understood as descriptive of the society that gives home the the accounts.

All the video is good, but if you don't have much time, just watch minute 1-14 where he talks about hierarchy and the order of God. THEN, slide over to minute 33 to hear his talk about the connection between Eden and the Cross. Wow, mind blowing.

 

[Gregorikos]

"Equal dominion mandate". You add that word equal. To echo things you say: Says who? So what? Eisegeting .

That isn't eisegeting at all. "Equal" is the logical conclusion of the text.

Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” Genesis 1:28 (NKJV)

God was speaking to them both. They both got the same mandate. That's equal. Eisegeting would be if you claimed they were not equal from that text.

Please tell liberal Wikipedia to catch up with you with your word meaning.
Genesis creation narrative - Wikipedia
Copy and paste from there about that word:

The first woman is created out of one of Adam's ribs to be ezer kenegdo (עזר כנגדו‎ ‘êzer kəneḡdō)[83] – a term notably difficult to translate – to the man. Kəneḡdō means "alongside, opposite, a counterpart to him", and ‘êzer means active intervention on behalf of the other person.[84] God's naming of the elements of the cosmos in Genesis 1 illustrated his authority over creation; now the man's naming of the animals (and of Woman) illustrates Adam's authority within creation.[85]​

​

OK, so what do we have here. Robert Alter [84] says it's a term notoriously difficult to translate, but he goes on ahead and translates it just fine, and in the same manner as is commonly accepted, and one which shows equality. Then Laurence A Turner [85] throws his complementarian spin on the naming, because as a member of the Gospel Coalition, he's a patriarchist. Of course he would say that.

SO HERE IS WHERE WE ARE SO FAR. You add the word "equal" to dominion mandate... then you go on to form a belief system around a word that is "difficult to translate". Well, difficult for everyone but you because you just know what that word means, LOL.

You sound exactly like the homosexual apologists. They claim we can't know what arsenokoites (Strongs 0733) means, so they just want to take 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 off the table. That's a cheap way out when the text is against you.

And you've misrepresented me completely. I didn't form my belief system around Genesis 2:18 at all, but I freely admit to forming it around Genesis 3:16, which plainly shows that patriarchy began at the fall.

I could have continued, line by line, with a verbal counter punch. But punch is the wrong word. I should say sissy slap. Now, I am not calling you a sissy, LOL. I am talking about all of us. We start looking like two little girls in a slap fight, LOL. It's a bit silly.

Listen, I was perfectly content to let Eloy's lame post lie. I saw no reason at all to engage his points, because I was certain that nobody would be impressed by it other than him and you. But you whined and moaned and practically shamed me into responding, as if I was holding out on you. So I answer it point by point, and you come back with this? No, bring the line by line counter punch. Show me where I'm wrong about Eloy's post.

Seriously though, it seems to me that our problem is that we have a slightly different understanding of what we mean by equality. I don't think anyone disagrees that we are all equal before God... whether we are referring to man or woman, black or white, right-brained people or left-brained people, healthy or handicapped, etc.

Yes we do. As a typical patriarchist, your definition of equal is, "God loves women just as much as men." Well one could make that same claim about slaves. Masters and slaves are equal because God loves slaves just as much. But you know fully well that slaves aren't equal to masters. And neither are women equal to men in your patriarchal system. Now show me where I am wrong.

We are all equal before God. Yet... we have different roles.

Gender roles, isn't that really what we are arguing about? You yourself acknowledged that the Man and Woman had different roles, even before the curse. Exhibit "A" being that women have babies and men have more testosterone. You and yours believe that the role difference STOPS there. Me and mine believe otherwise. That's the thing, right?

Yes, we are arguing about "gender roles," a term that was never used in theological circles in the entire history of the church until George Knight III introduced it in his 1977 book, New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women. Isn't it funny that your alleged Biblical concept didn't exist until the 20th century?

Having babies isn't a "role." Having babies doesn't make women unequal to men. But being permanently excluded from the pulpit or the decision making process on the basis of gender does make women unequal to men.

 

[Ohorseman]

Yes, we are arguing about "gender roles," a term that was never used in theological circles in the entire history of the church until George Knight III introduced it in his 1977 book, New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women. Isn't it funny that your alleged Biblical concept didn't exist until the 20th century?

No, sir. I don't think you know your church history very well. Again, you get hung up on a word.

Here's a funny story concerning changing kephalē to mean "source" rather than "head". This actually happened to me this past Easter. We are worshipping Christ with the traditional Easter hymn that is very old, "Christ the Lord Is Risen Today".

Christ the Lord is ris’n today, Alleluia!
Sons of men and angels say, Alleluia!
Raise your joys and triumphs high, Alleluia!
Sing, ye heav’ns, and earth, reply, Alleluia!
Lives again our glorious King, Alleluia!
Where, O death, is now thy sting? Alleluia!
Once He died our souls to save, Alleluia!
Where thy victory, O grave? Alleluia!
Love’s redeeming work is done, Alleluia!
Fought the fight, the battle won, Alleluia!
Death in vain forbids His rise, Alleluia!
Christ hath opened paradise, Alleluia!
Soar we now where Christ hath led, Alleluia!
Foll’wing our exalted head... I mean, "source", Alleluia???

"Dang... dude messed up my song... source doesn't even rhyme...."

 

[Gregorikos]

No, sir. I don't think you know your church history very well.

"The very first person in history to speak of “the role subordination” of women, and of “the eternal role subordination of the Son of God,” in both cases meaning in plain English their subordination in authority and nothing else, was George Knight III in his highly influential 1977 book, New Testament Teaching on the Role Relationship of Men and Women." - Kevin Giles, The Rise and Fall of the Complementarian Doctrine of the Trinity, p 8

If you know of sources that can refute that, I'd be interested in learning.

Here's a funny story concerning changing kephalē to mean "source" rather than "head". This actually happened to me this past Easter. We are worshipping Christ with the traditional Easter hymn that is very old, "Christ the Lord Is Risen Today".

Christ the Lord is ris’n today, Alleluia!
Sons of men and angels say, Alleluia!
Raise your joys and triumphs high, Alleluia!
Sing, ye heav’ns, and earth, reply, Alleluia!
Lives again our glorious King, Alleluia!
Where, O death, is now thy sting? Alleluia!
Once He died our souls to save, Alleluia!
Where thy victory, O grave? Alleluia!
Love’s redeeming work is done, Alleluia!
Fought the fight, the battle won, Alleluia!
Death in vain forbids His rise, Alleluia!
Christ hath opened paradise, Alleluia!
Soar we now where Christ hath led, Alleluia!
Foll’wing our exalted head... I mean, "source", Alleluia???

"Dang... dude messed up my song... source doesn't even rhyme...."

Christ the Lord is Risen Today was written by Charles Wesley, in English. In English it is perfectly appropriate to use the word "head" in reference to authority.

 

[Philip_B]

Sons of men and angels say, Alleluia!

OR
Earth and heaven in chorus say, Alleluia!

OR EVEN
Women, men and angels say, Alleluia

We are worshipping Christ with the traditional Easter hymn that is very old, "Christ the Lord Is Risen Today".

Author: Charles Wesley (1739)

The point here, and thankyou for raising it, is that in terms of the natural reading of the words in our age the alternative readings are far truer to what Charles Wesley was trying to say. This is a reflection of the changes that have happened in the way we use language. Wesley did not intend to exclude women when he penned the words 'Sons of men' however it is the effect of a culture steeped in paternalism that does not even notice.

Non-inclusive language is not the problem, and fixing it does not fix the problem, however to persevere with it, once you are aware of it is a clear red-flag and is symptomatic of the problem.

 

[Ohorseman]

You sound exactly like the homosexual apologists. They claim we can't know what arsenokoites (Strongs 0733) means, so they just want to take 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 off the table. That's a cheap way out when the text is against you.

LOL. I sound like them. I do not have a lisp.

You guys have the same playbook. Twins in action. Word changers. Narrative changers. Tradition changers. Translation changers. History changers. It is strange how all these waves of new doctrines are crashing against the church... and you think it is sacred tradition that is trying to change things.

Gay pride justifies their positions using various words that they claim have disputed and ambiguous meanings or translations. They dispute the original meanings of the words. They twist the narratives to suit their misinterpretation. It's funny how they claim Romans is about inappropriate man to boy relations only, pretending that means grown man with grown man is okay, and they just ignore the woman on woman part. The way they explain Sodom and Gomorrah is weird. Hospitality. Desires for angels. But, not gay pride. Right. That is even more strange than the way egalitarians claim that the head covering for a woman in 1 Corinthians 11 is a symbol of power, not submission. The main four that gay pride uses are these ancient Greek words, taken from the following wiki link about the subject:

Arsenokoitēs
Malakos
inappropriate contenteia
Pais

Homosexuality in the New Testament - Wikipedia.

The most shocking one can be read about under "Pais". It involves the story where Jesus healed the centurion's servant. Gay pride claims that the phrase "highly valued" used to describe the servant has sexual meanings, and that the servant was actually the Roman centurion's gay lover! And Jesus supported their gay sex and relationship as evidenced by Him healing the gay servant and not saying anything against them! Wow. Maybe that is what inspired some of the Anglican Churches in Australia to bless gay unions. Maybe it even inspired the phrase tweaking of that k'enegdo phrase in Hebrew.

My point is, they change the meaning of words, twist the texts, and use imaginary histories to form their strange doctrines and change church tradition. Hmmm. It looks like all you guys go to the same strategy classes, LOL.

If you feel strongly about this. If this works for you. As long as Christ is primary, I guess it does not really matter, maybe. I can see where egalitarianism would be beneficial to some people. Maybe some people need egalitarianism. Maybe some men beat their wives and their therapists tell them to see their wife as their equal in every way. Egalitarianism for that guy would be a good thing, because he lacks the ability to treat a woman properly in the traditional manner. Or maybe a man loves a woman that is a radical feminist. Egalitarianism for them might be a suitable compromise. Whatever works. Marriage is hard.

But for me, all this is a re-write of Christianity that I literally never even heard of until I met you here a few weeks ago. Sure, I'll agree that patriarchy as we know it is part of the fallen human condition. I trust the Lord will fix that when He returns. Until then, I follow Christ as I have been taught. I follow sacred tradition. I follow the scriptures as has been shown to me. I follow the church Fathers. I follow my Bishops. I follow my Elders. I follow, and honor, my mom and dad. I like it when a woman wears a veil in church. I cannot go where you go. I cannot re-form Theology around new word changes as you do. I guess that is why churches split. Neither of us seem willing to adjust very much. We should just respect each other as people and move on.

Here is another thing about words: if you ask my dad what the word gay means, he would tell you that when he was young it meant to be happy, carefree. But now, it means a person that likes to have sex with someone of the same sex. Very, very different meanings there. That word changed so much that it makes your head spin. That occurred within one man's lifetime! Think about that and what re-writers could do here. No sir, I will not change Theology based upon these word changes.

I hope there are no hard feeling between us and thank you for the robust and interesting exchanges.

 

[Gregorikos]

LOL. I sound like them. I do not have a lisp.

You guys have the same playbook. Twins in action. Word changers. Narrative changers. Tradition changers. Translation changers. History changers. It is strange how all these waves of new doctrines are crashing against the church... and you think it is sacred tradition that is trying to change things.

Gay pride justifies their positions using various words that they claim have disputed and ambiguous meanings or translations. They dispute the original meanings of the words. They twist the narratives to suit their misinterpretation. It's funny how they claim Romans is about inappropriate man to boy relations only, pretending that means grown man with grown man is okay, and they just ignore the woman on woman part. The way they explain Sodom and Gomorrah is weird. Hospitality. Desires for angels. But, not gay pride. Right. That is even more strange than the way egalitarians claim that the head covering for a woman in 1 Corinthians 11 is a symbol of power, not submission. The main four that gay pride uses are these ancient Greek words, taken from the following wiki link about the subject:

Arsenokoitēs
Malakos
inappropriate contenteia
Pais

Homosexuality in the New Testament - Wikipedia.

The most shocking one can be read about under "Pais". It involves the story where Jesus healed the centurion's servant. Gay pride claims that the phrase "highly valued" used to describe the servant has sexual meanings, and that the servant was actually the Roman centurion's gay lover! And Jesus supported their gay sex and relationship as evidenced by Him healing the gay servant and not saying anything against them! Wow. Maybe that is what inspired some of the Anglican Churches in Australia to bless gay unions. Maybe it even inspired the phrase tweaking of that k'enegdo phrase in Hebrew.

My point is, they change the meaning of words, twist the texts, and use imaginary histories to form their strange doctrines and change church tradition. Hmmm. It looks like all you guys go to the same strategy classes, LOL.

If you feel strongly about this. If this works for you. As long as Christ is primary, I guess it does not really matter, maybe. I can see where egalitarianism would be beneficial to some people. Maybe some people need egalitarianism. Maybe some men beat their wives and their therapists tell them to see their wife as their equal in every way. Egalitarianism for that guy would be a good thing, because he lacks the ability to treat a woman properly in the traditional manner. Or maybe a man loves a woman that is a radical feminist. Egalitarianism for them might be a suitable compromise. Whatever works. Marriage is hard.

But for me, all this is a re-write of Christianity that I literally never even heard of until I met you here a few weeks ago. Sure, I'll agree that patriarchy as we know it is part of the fallen human condition. I trust the Lord will fix that when He returns. Until then, I follow Christ as I have been taught. I follow sacred tradition. I follow the scriptures as has been shown to me. I follow the church Fathers. I follow my Bishops. I follow my Elders. I follow, and honor, my mom and dad. I like it when a woman wears a veil in church. I cannot go where you go. I cannot re-form Theology around new word changes as you do. I guess that is why churches split. Neither of us seem willing to adjust very much. We should just respect each other as people and move on.

Here is another thing about words: if you ask my dad what the word gay means, he would tell you that when he was young it meant to be happy, carefree. But now, it means a person that likes to have sex with someone of the same sex. Very, very different meanings there. That word changed so much that it makes your head spin. That occurred within one man's lifetime! Think about that and what re-writers could do here. No sir, I will not change Theology based upon these word changes.

I hope there are no hard feeling between us and thank you for the robust and interesting exchanges.

I disagree that egalitarianism and pro-LGBT folks follow the same playbook, though that is a common charge. But lets have a look at that:

Egalitarianism is supported by the conditions of perfection prior to the fall. Man and woman are presented as equals in Genesis 1 and 2, and are united in marriage in 2:24

LGBT issues and ideas are missing from the Eden account.


Egalitarianism is supported by the clear depiction of patriarchy as an event of the fall. (Gen 3:16) The world immediately sees the effects of the fallen world. In the very next chapter after the fall we find the first cases of murder (4:8) patrilineage (4:18) and polygamy (4:19) Humankind was thoroughly wicked by 6:5.

Unlike egalitarianism, homosexual intercourse is introduced post-fall. The first clear reference is Gen19:5, though it may have been referenced earlier, in 9:22.

Egalitarianism has several clear positive examples throughout the Bible – Miriam, Abigail, Deborah, Huldah, Mary Magdalene, Priscilla, Junia, Phoebe, Euodia, Syntyche, and others. There are ZERO gay positive examples in the Bible.

The complementarian references can all be explained without negating or removing any of them from the Bible. Egalitarianism stands with or without those references.

Not so for LGBT. Becoming pro LGBT means negating every Biblical reference that appears to be about homosexuality by applying each reference to something else. But in doing so you completely remove LGBT from the Bible. How can a divinely inspired book given to the Lord’s church leave out such a common occurrence as homosexuality? Did not the church leaders realize they had gay folks around them?

Using the common LGBT argument that (1) people are born that way and (2) it cannot be changed and (3) a substantial percentage of the population is born gay, we would have to conclude that there were many gay people in the early church.

Using a conservative figure of 2%, there must have been at least 60 gay people in the church on the first day. (Acts 2:41) In a very short time there would have been 100 gay people. (Acts 4:4) And then great numbers. (Acts 5:14). And the gay population grew even larger (Acts 6:1) and then it increased again, greatly (6:7)

Yet with all the teaching and admonition about sexual immorality and the utter seriousness that we must avoid it (Acts 15:20, 29, 21:25; 1 Cor 6:18; 7:2; 2 Cor 12:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5; 1 Thes 4:3) how is it that our supernatural, God-inspired book COMPLETELY overlooked all the gay people that were amongst the first century Christians?

So it's plain to see that the pro LGBT argument is utterly devoid of any substance, while the egalitarian argument has several Biblical points in favor of it. And while both of them challenge tradition, egalitarianism does so using solid Biblical hermeneutics, the other does not at all.

No hard feelings here.