Does God want us to live in a patriarchal society ?

[Tigran1245]

And that was a result of the Fall. That is disarmed in the Body of Christ.

No, absolutely not. Wife was created for her husband before the Fall, not the other way around. That's why she naturally submits to her husband. Scripture clearly teaches this:

“Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head“ (1 Kor 11:9-10)

So, this was before the Fall. And after the Fall husbands began to discriminate against women by abusing the power they had.

 

[Tigran1245]

Is there a way to check on people for a history of violent crime in Russia? Should somebody have done that?

This was ignored during the ordination under unclear circumstances. Sergius himself claims that Patriarch Alexy in 2001 personally blessed him, despite his criminal record. But Sergius's words, of course, cannot be trusted.

 

[Paidiske]

the presbyters and episcopi being male is not sexist nor a subjugation of women,

Of course it is.

This is present in Orthodoxy not because of the Orthodox teaching on patriarchy, but for other reasons: both cultural and accidental.

We could say the same of Christianity more generally. Any Christian group which really got the gospel right, would not have abuse, sexism or misogyny; but no group does have it entirely right, due to these cultural and accidental (sinful) factors.

As to your further posts, no. Before the fall there was radical equality between men and women; hierarchy between the sexes is a result of sin and the fall, not part of God's original good creation.

 

[RamiC]

This was ignored during the ordination under unclear circumstances. Sergius himself claims that Patriarch Alexy in 2001 personally blessed him, despite his criminal record. But Sergius's words, of course, cannot be trusted.

Oh but of course the bully will always be able to explain how it was all someone else's fault...

 

[Tigran1245]

As to your further posts, no. Before the fall there was radical equality between men and women; hierarchy between the sexes is a result of sin and the fall, not part of God's original good creation.

First, I didn't claim that a woman, as such, should be submissive to a man. A wife should be submissive to her husband in marriage, not women in general to men. These are different things.

Do you have any arguments in support of your position? For example, quotes from the Church Fathers, decrees of the early church councils, or a logical conclusion from Scripture? I've provided a direct quote from Scripture that clearly confirms that the headship of a husband over his wife follows from the creation of a wife for her husband:

“Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head“ (1 Kor 11:9-10)

 

[Paidiske]

First, I didn't claim that a woman, as such, should be submissive to a man. A wife should be submissive to her husband in marriage, not women in general to men. These are different things.

That's true, but I still disagree, unless we see a wife's submission in marriage as part of a dynamic in which they submit to one another, creatiting mutuality and equality.

I've provided a direct quote from Scripture that clearly confirms that the headship of a husband over his wife follows from the creation of a wife for her husband:

“Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head“ (1 Kor 11:9-10)

Let's start with looking at what headship does (and doesn't) mean. You might like to start here:

4 Reasons "Head" does not Mean "Leader"

The Greek word for "head" rarely, if ever, meant “leader" in Paul's time.

margmowczko.com

 

[The Liturgist]

Of course it is.

It’s not, because the women of the Orthodox Church want the status quo ante. Has it occurred to you that (a) there exist plenty of denominations where our liturgy is availble with female celebrants and (b) that many women prefer male celebrants? As long as the majority of Orthodox women want the status quo, it can’t possibly be regarded as demeaning to women.

Otherwise you’re basically saying that Orthodox women don’t have the right to self-determination. They are definitely powerful enough within the church, and have enough allies among the episcopate who have spoken of the ordination of women, like Metropolitan Kallistos ware, that if the majority wanted it, as was the case in your denomination, they would have it.

You’re also denying, as I have pointed out before, the holy ministry of the Presbytera, since just as you have Kings and Queens, married clergy come in pairs - Presbyters and Presbyteras, and the Presbytera is as vital a force in the parish as her husband, being the spiritual mother to the parish in the same way her husband is the spiritual father.

Conversely, a monastic priest is called a Hieromonk.

Have you spoken with any Orthodox women on the forum about their preferences regarding the priesthood? Because you know, we have a subforum of The Ancient Way called St. Basil’s Hall where anyone can ask any question of our members, and another, St. Justin Martyr’s Hall, where you can criticize our doctrine and debate it as aggressively as you want (as far as I’m aware, the Eastern Orthodox are the only denomination that provides a place on our congregational forum for people to debate us)

 

[The Liturgist]

The fact that he became a priest, founded a monastery and began to lead it is already contrary to Orthodoxy.

That is absolutely true. Murderers are generally inelliglbe for the priesthood, with the only slight exception I’m aware of being St. Moses the Black, who is heavily venerated in your fellow Oriental Orthodox in the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox as well as by the Eastern Orthodox, but his crimes were before he was baptized, and what is more he was the leader of a monastery of repentant men, and thus received oikonomia from the Church of Alexandria, and he and his monks were famously martyred by robbers.

 

[Tigran1245]

Otherwise you’re basically saying that Orthodox women don’t have the right to self-determination.

In the Orthodox Church (Eastern or Oriental, it doesn't matter), only the Lord Jesus Christ has authority, who exercises His will through the Ecumenical Bishops. The Church is not a democracy where decisions are made collectively by all believers. Yes, there are lay institutions of governance in the Local Church that decide certain matters. But they have authority only insofar as it has been delegated to them by the bishops.

They are definitely powerful enough within the church, and have enough allies among the episcopate who have spoken of the ordination of women, like Metropolitan Kallistos ware, that if the majority wanted it, as was the case in your denomination, they would have it.

If women's ordination is accepted, we can say goodbye to a united Eastern Orthodoxy. The Russian Church will never have anything in common with Churches that have female priests. We can also say goodbye to unification with the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches. None of them recognize women's ordination as valid. The only exception is deaconesses, although even here there is debate as to whether this constitutes a full priestly rank.

 

[stevevw]

You didn't actually listen to what she said. I can tell because you skirted by two substantive sources (both women) whom Elizabeth cited.

Ok sorry I switched it off just before the end as I had understood the gist of what the video was saying. So you mean Rebecca Mc Louchlan I think the author of 'Women through the eyes of Jesus".

Biblical Bookword didn't give her a great rating and disagreed with some of the ways the book looked into this issue. ie not addressing the more controversial verses. So if this is one of the substancive sources then I am not sure what you mean.

But there were other women you may be referring to like the two Mary's, Martha, Joan and Eve. So I am not sure which you are referring to as the two women.

Unjust male dominance is what it is, by any name or label we want to attach to it, and this is the case no matter who it is that is doing the labeling.

Then pewrhaps it should be labelled exactly what it is rather than a word that carries so much baggage that it distorts the lens before we start.

In fact, the precursor theology for what I'm saying should be evident to anyone who reads about the Family of Cain in the book of Genesis, with Lamech being a prime example of how things ought not to be between men and women but have so often been in human history .... with King Solomon being yet another clear example.

Who can we say was perfect in their relations in how they treated others. Ah Mary. And Jesus of course. A few others came pretty close. Enoch and Elijah were taken straight to heaven so they must have done something right. Though Noah was less than perfect he and his family were the only ones saved from the flood.

I am not sure citing biblical verses is the best way to fully understand this issue. I think other domains can add clarity and understanding like science and lived reality need to also be included.

Based on the idea that we should be more aware and able to decern today more than any other time through enlightenment and just sheer experiences over history. But I think mostly by what is actually happening in our times. .

Perhaps, but no one here is saying we must use Critical Theory and/or Woke-ism to provide a lens. Instead, we can use Critical Realism as a mode for our ventures into the underlying social studies needed.

Ok so how I see it is that we know different periods in history had different cultural and social norms. No 1 we know that a cultural or social lens is itself a subject or relative in the case of other religions and cultures.

It is not something we can cite facts or objective reality about. The very nature is subjective and experiential for whatever period or nation we are looking at. Or even down to the level of political party or denomination or even individual.

So to begin with we are coming at this from what most people call Postmodernism as the underlying lens. So its not as if there is any clear fact or truth about how people are counter citing verses and the different beliefs even political views which can be partisan. Or just personal experiences and feelings.

So therefore we need a tie breaker. Or as many other factors as we can know. Like objective reality itself which often aligns with natural laws and biblical truths. But also plain old empirical science. How the psychology and sociology can determine patterns of thinking and what causes groups within society to disagree or motivates them to believe what they believe.

It is actually a can or worms if you begin to peel back these layers of the different aspects of human and group behaviour dynamics that gives insight. That includes many areas like political science, all the behavioural sciences. In this way we begin to get a balance view and not just an ideological one that can often be biased and distorted.

I don't even understand what this has to do with anything being talked about between us this morning.

Do you mean my post on how Feminism has morphed into Woke and all that. Or my reply to your video where I was saying I don't think citing bible verses is enough to be the sole basis for making determinations about gender and roles and all that.

Because both sides can cite verses and then it becomes a battle of who has the most truthful verse. Which is really a subjective determination and thats why it never gets resolved that way.

The video seemed to be doing the same. There was a lot I could see was a subjective determination based on whatever, person beliefs or views, environment, conditioning depending what side of politics or personal experiences that tainted the determinations I thought. Well at least I know there will be people who have another take and then well it gets into back and forth subjective opinions.

There's no agreement because folks like you put principle before practice. I reverse this order, with praxis coming first, and I thereby arrive at principle.

Ah see this is what I mean. The 'us and them'. This is exactly the identity politics I am talking about. What do you mean people like me lol. That sounds as though there are certain people out there that need to be stopped. They are evil. Or truthfully wrong.

In fact I don't even know what you mean by 'people like you' lol. Its so ambigious and all inclusive. Or like facts in science and how some belittle groups based on their belief that the world is flat. Watch out for those people they are whackos lol.

Principle before practice. As though its coming from some NGO policy and practice. I am not sure what you even mean by practice. Is this living as Christs example. Or is this being pragmatic and dealing with whats in front of you. Or some practice ethos some government agency has that underlies their principles.

Why can't people hold equal weights of each or even hold principles as higher but still practice. Or put into practice their beliefs in everyday reality which are the principles. Why make it about this or that.

If you think this is the case, then start doing so. Maybe take the time to retrace what your professors taught you in college about proper methodology in social and historical studies.

Hum, I already know this and the assumption that I am missing something and whatever else you think I am lol is your mind not mine. I was not just saying Christians should step back from all the culture wars.

I also mean as per the teachings. The fundemental teachings we can all agree on relating to Christ and the disciples teachings which form the basis for Christianity and Christs church.

The main problem in most of today's cultural conflict is the mainstreaming of anti-Christian unbelief. It's not due to feminine emotions (which, biblically speaking, God created), nor is it due to the advocacy for social justice (which, biblically speaking, God demands).

Well yes God created our emotions as they are part of us. But emotions can be experienced differently in genders. Thats a fact which needs to be acknowledged and taken into consideration. Along with other factors relating to the sciences and natural laws.

I disagree that its an either/or choice. Its all the above and equally so as far as their possible influence. The more data the better I think and then we see patterns of behaviour on a social and cultural and human wide level.

So I am not sure the 'mainstreaming of anti-Christian unbelief' is the only factor. Certainly a factor. But we all know there is mainstreaming of Jew and Christian hate as well. Or just mainstreaming of hate and division full stop through the age of media and social media.

Its a weird situation. I sense there is even support for other religions like Islam over Christians. We know of the bias and targeting of Christians by the State. This is at the level of institution which is not good and actually shows that though not a religion the State on the back of the prevailing secular social norms of the time. Can act in ways that are like a religion.

So I think there are 101 mainstreamings of all different sorts being thrown around. I think this age more than any other time is an age where people can easily be fooled with all the fake news and narratives and media bias. The power of social media to make what is fringe mainstream. Its a scary world for Christians and more than ever they have to be sure of the truth.

That is why I think stepping back and especially after Kirks murder. Step back reflect and really think about what it means to be a Christian.

Plus I think the ways things are going that Christians will be forced socially to reprove their faith. So hopefully many will get back to basics and be more Christlike.

Part of that I think is to just get on with being Christlike and His church. Nevermind all the other different beliefs and views in the world. Theres only one to worry about. Do this and allow others to do whatever it is they choose to do and God will sort out the rest.

Jesus even said this to his diciples when he sent them out to preach to the world. That if they entered a town or place that disgreed or was hostile to the message. Then wipe your feet of that town and move on to the next as they will welcome you.

I think it was Clement who gave the best sign of Christs church. He said where there is unity of mind and spirit there Christ resides. With so much division today you wonder where Christ is.

PS can you tell me if I passed the test. Did I get the two women sources correct. I am sure I got them all so they must be among those women .

 

[Paidiske]

It’s not, because the women of the Orthodox Church want the status quo ante.

Well, that's both not accurate, and not relevant.

Not all Orthodox women want the status quo ante. And even if they did, the fact that some women might support a sexist position, doesn't make it objectively less sexist. I can find women arguing that women shouldn't vote, either, but that doesn't mean that denying women the vote isn't sexist.

You’re also denying, as I have pointed out before, the holy ministry of the Presbytera,

I'm not denying it, but I'm arguing that it doesn't change the problem of denying women's vocations to ordination.

Have you spoken with any Orthodox women on the forum about their preferences regarding the priesthood?

Yes. And better than that, I've spoken with many in real life. And I find a mixed bag; some have no issue with the current situation, and many do. Those that do will seldom say so publicly on these forums, though, because they then get backlash for doing so.

 

[The Liturgist]

If women's ordination is accepted, we can say goodbye to a united Eastern Orthodoxy.

It won’t be. The idea is preposterous. The women don’t want it, nor do the men.

 

[The Liturgist]

Not all Orthodox women want the status quo ante.

The vast majority do.

And even if they did, the fact that some women might support a sexist position, doesn't make it objectively less sexist.

So their opinion doesn’t matter because it conflicts with some pre-defined cultural rubric of egalitarianism? Is that your argument? Because if so that would be deeply disappointing.

That's true, but I still disagree, unless we see a wife's submission in marriage as part of a dynamic in which they submit to one another, creatiting mutuality and equality.

That statement actually appears to clash with the writings of St. Paul directly.

 

[Paidiske]

The vast majority do.

Since neither you nor I have access to a statistically meaningful survey, at this point, all we're doing is trading our own subjective perceptions on that point.

So their opinion doesn’t matter because it conflicts with some pre-defined cultural rubric of egalitarianism?

It doesn't matter on the question of whether or not denying women's vocations is sexist, no.

Like I said, that some women support sexist positions, doesn't make them any less objectively sexist.

That statement actually appears to clash with the writings of St. Paul directly.

Not at all. It was St. Paul who prefaced instructions to wives, specifically, with instructions to everyone to "submit to one another." Wifely submission is only one aspect of mutual submission.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Ok sorry I switched it off just before the end as I had understood the gist of what the video was saying. So you mean Rebecca Mc Louchlan I think the author of 'Women through the eyes of Jesus".

Yeah, that's what I thought. You didn't bother................................

Biblical Bookword didn't give her a great rating and disagreed with some of the ways the book looked into this issue. ie not addressing the more controversial verses. So if this is one of the substancive sources then I am not sure what you mean.

But there were other women you may be referring to like the two Mary's, Martha, Joan and Eve. So I am not sure which you are referring to as the two women.

Then pewrhaps it should be labelled exactly what it is rather than a word that carries so much baggage that it distorts the lens before we start.

Who can we say was perfect in their relations in how they treated others. Ah Mary. And Jesus of course. A few others came pretty close. Enoch and Elijah were taken straight to heaven so they must have done something right. Though Noah was less than perfect he and his family were the only ones saved from the flood.

I am not sure citing biblical verses is the best way to fully understand this issue. I think other domains can add clarity and understanding like science and lived reality need to also be included.

Based on the idea that we should be more aware and able to decern today more than any other time through enlightenment and just sheer experiences over history. But I think mostly by what is actually happening in our times. .

Ok so how I see it is that we know different periods in history had different cultural and social norms. No 1 we know that a cultural or social lens is itself a subject or relative in the case of other religions and cultures.

It is not something we can cite facts or objective reality about. The very nature is subjective and experiential for whatever period or nation we are looking at. Or even down to the level of political party or denomination or even individual.

So to begin with we are coming at this from what most people call Postmodernism as the underlying lens. So its not as if there is any clear fact or truth about how people are counter citing verses and the different beliefs even political views which can be partisan. Or just personal experiences and feelings.

So therefore we need a tie breaker. Or as many other factors as we can know. Like objective reality itself which often aligns with natural laws and biblical truths. But also plain old empirical science. How the psychology and sociology can determine patterns of thinking and what causes groups within society to disagree or motivates them to believe what they believe.

It is actually a can or worms if you begin to peel back these layers of the different aspects of human and group behaviour dynamics that gives insight. That includes many areas like political science, all the behavioural sciences. In this way we begin to get a balance view and not just an ideological one that can often be biased and distorted.

Do you mean my post on how Feminism has morphed into Woke and all that. Or my reply to your video where I was saying I don't think citing bible verses is enough to be the sole basis for making determinations about gender and roles and all that.

Because both sides can cite verses and then it becomes a battle of who has the most truthful verse. Which is really a subjective determination and thats why it never gets resolved that way.

The video seemed to be doing the same. There was a lot I could see was a subjective determination based on whatever, person beliefs or views, environment, conditioning depending what side of politics or personal experiences that tainted the determinations I thought. Well at least I know there will be people who have another take and then well it gets into back and forth subjective opinions.

Ah see this is what I mean. The 'us and them'. This is exactly the identity politics I am talking about. What do you mean people like me lol. That sounds as though there are certain people out there that need to be stopped. They are evil. Or truthfully wrong.

In fact I don't even know what you mean by 'people like you' lol. Its so ambigious and all inclusive. Or like facts in science and how some belittle groups based on their belief that the world is flat. Watch out for those people they are whackos lol.

Principle before practice. As though its coming from some NGO policy and practice. I am not sure what you even mean by practice. Is this living as Christs example. Or is this being pragmatic and dealing with whats in front of you. Or some practice ethos some government agency has that underlies their principles.

Why can't people hold equal weights of each or even hold principles as higher but still practice. Or put into practice their beliefs in everyday reality which are the principles. Why make it about this or that.

Hum, I already know this and the assumption that I am missing something and whatever else you think I am lol is your mind not mine. I was not just saying Christians should step back from all the culture wars.

I also mean as per the teachings. The fundemental teachings we can all agree on relating to Christ and the disciples teachings which form the basis for Christianity and Christs church.

Well yes God created our emotions as they are part of us. But emotions can be experienced differently in genders. Thats a fact which needs to be acknowledged and taken into consideration. Along with other factors relating to the sciences and natural laws.

I disagree that its an either/or choice. Its all the above and equally so as far as their possible influence. The more data the better I think and then we see patterns of behaviour on a social and cultural and human wide level.

So I am not sure the 'mainstreaming of anti-Christian unbelief' is the only factor. Certainly a factor. But we all know there is mainstreaming of Jew and Christian hate as well. Or just mainstreaming of hate and division full stop through the age of media and social media.

Its a weird situation. I sense there is even support for other religions like Islam over Christians. We know of the bias and targeting of Christians by the State. This is at the level of institution which is not good and actually shows that though not a religion the State on the back of the prevailing secular social norms of the time. Can act in ways that are like a religion.

So I think there are 101 mainstreamings of all different sorts being thrown around. I think this age more than any other time is an age where people can easily be fooled with all the fake news and narratives and media bias. The power of social media to make what is fringe mainstream. Its a scary world for Christians and more than ever they have to be sure of the truth.

That is why I think stepping back and especially after Kirks murder. Step back reflect and really think about what it means to be a Christian.

Plus I think the ways things are going that Christians will be forced socially to reprove their faith. So hopefully many will get back to basics and be more Christlike.

Part of that I think is to just get on with being Christlike and His church. Nevermind all the other different beliefs and views in the world. Theres only one to worry about. Do this and allow others to do whatever it is they choose to do and God will sort out the rest.

Jesus even said this to his diciples when he sent them out to preach to the world. That if they entered a town or place that disgreed or was hostile to the message. Then wipe your feet of that town and move on to the next as they will welcome you.

I think it was Clement who gave the best sign of Christs church. He said where there is unity of mind and spirit there Christ resides. With so much division today you wonder where Christ is.

I see a text wall here. Too bad I won't be reading it. Maybe write less? Like a lot less? Sometimes, less is more in order to get a point across rather than trying to avalanche folks into submission (..........especially when you misinterpret and interpolate what it is you think they're saying).

PS can you tell me if I passed the test. Did I get the two women sources correct. I am sure I got them all so they must be among those women .

No, you missed one actually. And your snark isn't appreciated.

Please, don't broach this topic with me anymore, Steve. I won't be engaging any of your sources or your interpretations of those sources from this point on because you don't give others (such as myself) a complete and honest hearing, and I therefore won't be giving you my time and energy either. You're on your own.......................................................

 

[RamiC]

Step back reflect and really think about what it means to be a Christian.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16 KJV

 

[timewerx]

Not at all. It was St. Paul who prefaced instructions to wives, specifically, with instructions to everyone to "submit to one another." Wifely submission is only one aspect of mutual submission.

The teachings of Paul tend to be very context-heavy and I don't even think many of them even applies today, especially on the subject of marriage.

When in doubt, I always refer to the teachings of Jesus. Jesus allowed women things that the Pharisees won't like becoming a disciple for example.

 

[RamiC]

It’s not, because the women of the Orthodox Church want the status quo ante. Has it occurred to you that (a) there exist plenty of denominations where our liturgy is availble with female celebrants and (b) that many women prefer male celebrants? As long as the majority of Orthodox women want the status quo, it can’t possibly be regarded as demeaning to women.

You may believe that the status quo is not demeaning to women, but would seem that actually within the Orthodox Church it indeed can be:

In the beginning, the Church was faithful to the vision of its divine founder. Then it was a koinonia (community) of believers in which distinctions based on class, nationality and sex did not exist. It was for women a rare springtime of promise and fulfillment.

In its deliberations on the question of women’s place and participation in the Church, Orthodoxy must look to the model of equal discipleship and diakonia, which Christ established and which the apostolic Church followed.

Full participation of women in the life of the Church, however, did not last long. Restrictions based on gender began to appear already at the end of the first century, as ancient patriarchal patterns, structures and traditions re-asserted themselves in the Christian community.

By the fourth century women had been effectively excluded from leadership and authority in the Church, their diakonia greatly circumscribed. Since then the ecclesial situation for Orthodox women has remained basically the same. A few recent cosmetic changes have not in any way altered traditional structures and practices which discriminate against women.

Orthodox Women and Our Church – Orthodox Christian Laity

 

[stevevw]

Yeah, that's what I thought. You didn't bother................................

OK sorry I did not think it was a test to find the author but actually to understand what was being said. I got all that was said lol. In fact I got what was being said from the first few minutes. So I re looked and still think the same even after knowing the source.

Primarily she is making a case that the bible supports equal gender roles. Both men and women are made in Gods image and of equal worth. That bible verses can be twisted to promote control and abuse. That Jesus often treated women equally by the example of Mary at Jesus feet. I understand the reasoning and this is a common approach.

Was there some other lesson or understanding we are suppose to get from this. I am not sure your point on why I should know the author. Was I suppose to go and look her up as well.

I see a text wall here. Too bad I won't be reading it. Maybe write less? Like a lot less? Sometimes, less is more in order to get a point across rather than trying to avalanche folks into submission (..........especially when you misinterpret and interpolate what it is you think they're saying).

So you criticise that I don't look at all the video and then you do the same to my evidence. Or at least have the same attitude that its not worth looking at to the end or in this case not at all. Hum how can anyone have a fair discussion under those rules. All you did was make a personal jibe and nothing about my comments.

No, you missed one actually. And your snark isn't appreciated.

I t was a joke. It seems your getting all flustered over me missing the end of your video. Sorry gee. I said I understood the gist of it. I'm too scared to ask which one I missed lol. And thats not being snarky. I honestly was confused about the urgency that I missed tow sources.

I regard sources as like an independent link to a paper or arguement or something like that. Not womens names in the bible. If this was the criteria then we have 100s of mens names in the bible as examples.

I was confused by the other women source. They referred to a Pew research but that was not a women. Anyway.

Please, don't broach this topic with me anymore, Steve. I won't be engaging any of your sources or your interpretations of those sources from this point on because you don't give others (such as myself) a complete and honest hearing, and I therefore won't be giving you my time and energy either. You're on your own.......................................................

You have been antagonistic from the start. I never said anything to you. I just stated my reasoning and thats it. Then you start attacking my motives and misrepresenting what I said and moralising that I did not do this or that.

But you know in all this I still engaged and looked twice at the video and took time to reason out where I am at and how I have a different view on all the back and forth from each side.

You have not. You just dismissed it all and did not even engage.

In fact you are so preoccupied with the very stuff I am talking about and not bothering to give my view the time of day that you completely missed what I was saying. Let me put it in simple terms.

I disagree with the whole thing of the back and forth arguements using the bible examples to outdo the opposing sides to prove their take on the interpretation is the truth. I agree with all the examples the video presented. Have no issues. Its that people can make counter ones to this and it never ends. This never resolves the issue.

I am not on either side and don't want to participate anymore. It never ends and is always the same. In 50 years it will not change as people believe what they believe.

So I disagree with the entire approach from both sides of the debate and don't want to participate in the constant back and forth fighting.

So you are actually attacking me for not wanting to engage in the kinds of hermeneutics I think don't even work as a method of proving anything for either side. You missed that.

 

[RamiC]

I am not on either side and don't want to participate anymore. It never ends and is always the same. In 50 years it will not change as people believe what they believe.

So I disagree with the entire approach from both sides of the debate and don't want to participate in the constant back and forth fighting.

You are in luck, chatting in threads on CF is an entirely optional activity. You do not want to do it, that is okay. The OP of this one is a question, people were always going to provide their opinions in response.