It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The narrow path

page: 12
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2013 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


Yet Paul says nothing about men being submissive to women. If we are truly equal then we should expect things equally from one another. If Paul saw women as equal, he would have either said for men to also be submissive or tell neither to be submissive.

He singles women out on many occasions, yet he never singles out men. That is a sign of a superiority complex. If Paul didn't feel superior, he would have leveled the playing field, but he didn't.




posted on May, 16 2013 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


The preacher on Sunday is a man in high place. He is unobtainable. His knowledge of scripture has surpassed yours. How do you know this, because he is the one you are paying to teach you? If you didn’t believe he belonged there you would not give him money.

The preacher has become a wall between you and love. Because you thought by going to church and giving money you could be saved.

Paul worked day and night as an example to the rest of us.

If I stand at the pulpit and spew out yet another book review on the same 200 pages of scripture each Sunday and I take your money, I must know more than you. I am better than you. I am something you can never become.

If I work with my hands day and night alongside you and then meet up with you in the temple court. Now I am just a man, someone like you that you can also become. The preacher became a stumbling block because the congregation thinks they need a Pastor to tell them "How" and "Why".

The How and Why is love. And I don't think any of us needs someone to tell us go love each other every Sunday. We should rather just do it every day.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


I can't tell if you're condoning the preacher or not. Are you saying that sarcastically, or do you really believe the preacher is better than you?

Sorry, it's hard to read sarcasm on the internet.


You don't realize that Paul was the same as your preacher in his time. He encouraged people to go to church while Jesus called church-goers hypocrites. Paul served money, and he admitted it in that verse.

Would you let a homeless man go hungry if you saw him on the street starving all because he doesn't work? If not, you are in disagreement with Paul. He says to let those who do not work go hungry. That's not very compassionate of him.
edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


Yet Paul says nothing about men being submissive to women. If we are truly equal then we should expect things equally from one another. If Paul saw women as equal, he would have either said for men to also be submissive or tell neither to be submissive.

He singles women out on many occasions, yet he never singles out men. That is a sign of a superiority complex. If Paul didn't feel superior, he would have leveled the playing field, but he didn't.


Women are to be submissive and most men agree at least in partial theory. When a husband and wife disagree and a decision absolutely has to be made in most households the man chooses his way. The woman has no other choice but to submit. The challenge for the women is to acknowledge this truth and always submit as an act of love, rather than disparaging act of loosing.

If the women chooses submission she earns her husband's trust, and thus both are rewarded in love. If she submits only as an act of loosing, neither is justified.

In a marriage two really do become one. The actions of one always lead to the reaction of the other. All emotions, positive and negative become shared emotions. In a marriage there is really no way to escape equality from an emotional or spiritual perspective.

To serve is not to submit. The women's act of service is to submit. These are equal roles when the man serves effectively.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I dont agree with pastors or churches the way they are run. I believe they are men who turned stones into bread. Thus they will never fully understand the gospel.

I made my point to show that Paul was not a Pastor. He considered himself a common man, working alongside common men. The only difference in his mind was he was called to teach and they were called to learn. Both the teacher and learner are of the same significance in the eyes of God. This is what he demonstrated by his work ethic. He was not greedy, he was humble, and a servant to man.

The pastor is paid to perform a job, thus he cannot be considered a servant. He has taken a seat alongside the Levites. He has not become a disciple of Christ.

This is my view on pastors at churches.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
To serve is not to submit. The women's act of service is to submit. These are equal roles when the man serves effectively.


You have to see what's wrong with the bolded part right?

To serve IS the act of service. So basically you just said that to serve is not to submit but to serve is to submit. You contradicted yourself right there. Ever heard of the phrase "double-think"? Because that is a PERFECT example of it right there.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by sacgamer25
To serve is not to submit. The women's act of service is to submit. These are equal roles when the man serves effectively.


You have to see what's wrong with the bolded part right?

To serve IS the act of service. So basically you just said that to serve is not to submit but to serve is to submit. You contradicted yourself right there. Ever heard of the phrase "double-think"? Because that is a PERFECT example of it right there.


Hmm yes you got me. Let me try to say this a different way.

When the man serve's he is doing something for his wife, because he has submitted to Christ/Love.

The wife also loves in this way. But the way a woman truly shows her man that she serves him is to obey him, when his command comes from love. Or if they simply disagree on matters of the household.

The women should only stand up when her husband's actions are directly against love. Then she has an obligation in love to correct him. To obey can be considered an act of service that a wife performs.

In every marriage there will come disagreements that must be resolved. In these cases the women is to submit, when doing so will not harm love.

The husband submits to Christ, the wife to the husband. This is the order, but it only works when the husband truly serves his wife.

You are too literal when you read what I post. This is good for me so I don't mind. But truly other than maybe not choosing words wisely enough, I still don't believe that I have contradicted myself in thought or concept. Only in the perception that was created by the words I choose.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


If you have to break something so simple down that far then it probably isn't true. You still hold the same belief, yet you have somehow circumvented the contradiction within your head even though it is still there.

You don't see the contradiction because of preconceived notions. You should really learn to open the box a little. No offense.
To obey is to submit, so you are still basically saying the same thing as before except in a slightly different way.

You might want to look up the phrase "double-think" and its meaning because it is a real thing and you have shown a perfect example with your post here. I'm not attacking or criticizing, just trying to help.

edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Fair enough, it's all just religion after all.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 10:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


What is?



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Originally posted by sacgamer25
To serve is not to submit. The women's act of service is to submit. These are equal roles when the man serves effectively.


You have to see what's wrong with the bolded part right?

To serve IS the act of service. So basically you just said that to serve is not to submit but to serve is to submit. You contradicted yourself right there. Ever heard of the phrase "double-think"? Because that is a PERFECT example of it right there.


The man's act to serve is done in submission to love. The women's act to submit to her husband is also done in submission to love. This does not mean that the man submits to his wife, but it does demand that he truly love her.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


This still doesn't answer the contradiction. Paul never says that men should serve women. Why not?
edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


What is?


Anything past love, the how, the why, the who is debatable. In a marriage the who and the why are known. Only the how is unknown. The best way to find out, ask your partner, and then do what they ask.

Anything said past this is religion and we need not agree to find love. This is the one thing I would like you to take away from this discussion. If a man says nothing against love, then maybe your perception is based on prior knowledge and not that of the man who you are debating.

I made challenge to reincarnation, only because I believe that for some this could create a stumbling block. I believe that reincarnation suggests to the one who is lost in sin that the only way out will be in the next life. I believe that many who believe in reincarnation teach more towards self and indifference than they teach to truly love one another.

I don't see this in your writing so I quickly left that debate. For if it is not a stumbling block to you, why would I try to convince you it is. You attempt to cure my Christianity, which is Nobel indeed: D. But my version of what I believe the bible says causes me no stumbling block, or wall like you imagine.

This is why we call love, love and religion, religion. Resurrection, Reincarnation, The roles of women and men. These can all remain debatable without sacrificing the amount of love that we share with one another.

edit on 16-5-2013 by sacgamer25 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


This still doesn't answer the contradiction. Paul never says that men should serve women. Why not?
edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


Because Christ had already said it. The assumption being that Paul agreed with Christ, and was merely adding clarification.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


But doesn't that mean that anything Paul says other than love is religion? He taught way more than just love, he set out rules, guidelines, and red tape, most of which had absolutely nothing to do with love.

A woman staying silent has nothing to do with love, anything doing with guidelines on how to believe and what to believe has nothing to do with love either. Paul taught religion more than he taught love, that's why the biggest religion in the world is based around his teachings. He helped start the religion with Peter.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


This still doesn't answer the contradiction. Paul never says that men should serve women. Why not?
edit on 16-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


Because Christ had already said it. The assumption being that Paul agreed with Christ, and was merely adding clarification.


Where at? Could you point to a verse where Jesus says men should serve women? I don't recall him ever saying such a thing.



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 11:50 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I found your OP and the responses it garnered very interesting, with many good points made. Perhaps what I have to say was already said, but I think you could find literally a thousand or so direct contradictions contained in the "current" scripture. I add the "current" caveat, bc since the Council of Nicea, and perhaps even before, this text has been expurgated, edited, added to, revised, etc.....
There is much in the Bible of today I find impossible to accept a loving God would say, do, or require of his creation, what he loved more than anything else.

As to following the way of Christ, then we would all sacrifice ourselves for the sins of others, so that the guilty would be cleansed? I don't object to the certain beauty of such sacrifice, but this is a world, frankly, where sociopaths seem to be the most successfull personallity types. And guess what? They'd absolutely love for anyone to sacrifice themselves for their sins, and then they'd go right on committing them. I don't think that makes much sense iin God's intentions, either.

One of the most fascinating things I find about the Bible, is it is really, if you study it carefully, the same story told over and over again......and this, I think, should be instructive to us all in some way today, whatever day this may really be.....
Tetra50



posted on May, 16 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Sorry it was in Ephesians about Christ, not said directly by Christ. My apologies. I believe all scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit, so the words Christ spoke always carry the most weight, but they all are valid.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her

How did Christ love the church? As a servant and martyr. This is how we are to love our wives. If a husband loves his wife completely what would she have to fear in listening to him?

Either the husband or the wife could be the first to believe. If it is the husband is first, he is to serve first, then ask for obedience. If it is the wife who is first to believe, she should submit to her husband completely first, then she should ask for him to help with the service.

This will work; either partner can choose to love as commanded first. If just one loves as commanded this could be enough to save a marriage.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Someday I will put the time in needed to clear this up. For now let's just say you are right about unconditional love. One thing to remember is we are not in an unconditional environment, so there are some rules that we must follow so we do no harm to one another.

But religion is not one of those rules. We have no need for religion other than a friendly debate.



posted on May, 17 2013 @ 12:50 AM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 


That doesn't say anything about a man submitting to a woman though.

Why did Paul say that women should submit to men but not the other way around? Love == submission.

If Paul thought women were equal, he would taught about them equally, as in saying men should submit to women just as he said women should submit to men, but he didn't.

He also would have said that men should be silent, but he didn't.

Paul is the poster boy for rules and regulations which have nothing to do with love, so if anything other than love is religion as you say, then 95% of Paul's teachings are religion. Didn't you say you don't like religion?
edit on 17-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join