1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

81 year old grandmother fired - she is a women

Discussion in 'The OT' started by wkomorow, Aug 24, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Aug 27, 2006 #21 of 173
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    I have to agree with you. Where does the bible endorse slavery? True, in the Old Testament, there's an accounting for killing another's slave, but I'm unaware of anywhere the bible says that slavery's ok - particularly in the teachings of Christ.

    I also refute the notion that people who believe in God are blind followers. Hang around a group of Catholics some time, and see how many are in open disagreement with the Pope. I believe that's a common misconception - we have no brains of our own, and we just do as directed. Baloney. I think it's particularly true in the Catholic church because of the existence of the Pope. I get into discussions with non-Catholics who use the statements of the Pope as a debating point. They assume that we HAVE to follow all the statements made by the Pope. Wrong. They assume that the Church is an autocracy where priests and lay people aren't allowed to come to conclusions regarding morality on our own. Wrong again.

    The arguments to that effect REALLY came to the forefront in the 2004 election. When a variety of Cardinals called for excommunication of Catholic politicians who support abortion, I can't tell you how many times I heard statements like "well, what about the death penalty? You support that, but the Pope has spoken out against the death penalty - why shouldn't conservative Catholic politicians be excommunicated too?" First, the assumption is that all conservatives support the death penalty. Not true. I do, in some cases, but have called it into question for routine use. Second the argument that because the Pope speaks out against something - we're supposed to follow everything he says to the letter. Again, wrong. The Pope can speak with infallibility (a concept that many, including many Catholics, have problems with), but he rarely does. When he does, he's said to be speaking ex-cathedra. As the head of the Church on earth. But just because he makes a statement against things like the Iraq war, or the death penalty, doesn't mean THOSE statements carry the same weight as the opposition to abortion. For those types of issues, we are free to let our moral compass guide us. For issues that are seen as being "evil under all circumstances" - e.g. abortion - the Church lays down the law.

    Trust me, I'm sure our priests would LOVE it if people blindly followed what they said -- the lines at the confessional would be a heck of a lot shorter :) But we don't. We're encourage to seek out the truth. We're encouraged to explore and examine our faith. Heck, our church sponsors many discussions outside of Sunday Mass - including one event called "Faith on Tap" where a bunch of Catholics sit around in a bar with either a priest or decon and discuss issues of the day, and analyze how it fits within the teachings of the church.
     
  2. Aug 27, 2006 #22 of 173
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Sorry if I lost ya there Laverne.:shrug:

    My comment was that I perceive a wave of authoritarianism has swept the globe and this manifests itself in things like religious fundmentalism as well as blind fealty to leaders. Here's a link to the issue at hand and an excerpt.
    http://www.wwnytv.net/72k/full-story.asp?uid=12074&area=home+page

    Perhaps as you imply, there's more to this then meets the eye. For instance, from the link also.
    However, from the use of the quoted scripture, I think we can assume that some religious fundamentalism was at least involved in the decision. And while I agree with Nick in the sense this may be a relatively minor and insignificant story,(but not that it's another "liberal" media conspiracy) pjmrt seeks to use it to justify the broader attitudes toward women in the church, particularly fundamentalist churchs.

    My reference to 9/11 was simply to illustrate that we all sometimes seek out authoritarian leadership in times of crisis, not that the two events are comparable or analogous in any way. And that this is not only understandable, but may be an appropriate and prudent reaction.
     
  3. Aug 27, 2006 #23 of 173
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    You're right! I've seen the light! We live in a brutal society... so authoritarian that you're not even allowed to say anything critical of the administration, or authority in general in a free-form blog... oh wait... either that ain't true, or most of the people here are blogging from jail.
     
  4. Aug 27, 2006 #24 of 173
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    I've been wondering where my tax money has been going. The FBI haven't been buying laptops for the investigators, they've been outfitting felons so they can file their blogs :lol:


    And jonstad - "justifying broader attitudes of the church toward women". Well, as I said, I never really expected you (or any non-believer) to get my point. I'm supposing the "broader attitude" you refer to is that women are 2nd class citizens, relegated to "lesser" jobs in the church. Again, generally speaking, "jobs" in the church are not (at least should not originate from) earthly ambition, but by the sovereign call of God - God saying He wants you for that job. Paul was not looking for a job as an Apostle. He met Jesus and Jesus told Paul what job He wanted Paul to do. That to me is the example, although I would hope God wouldn't have to knock me over and blind me for a few days to get my attention first. :) Jonstad, you make a serious and fundamental error in assuming that the job of priest or pastor is the top of the food chain in Christendom. In that little has changed in 2000 years perhaps. And you compound your error by assuming that equal opportunity = equal vocation or roles. Consider Mother Teresa. Few people effected and helped as many people as she. I believe her ministry was a response to God's call. Yet she lacked all the authoritarianism you seem to value in a vocation. I could list, as can jpl I'm sure, great women of God who made a difference. But again, such things are foolishness to those who perish.
     
  5. Aug 27, 2006 #25 of 173
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Well of course that's not even close to what I said. But since you tend to see things only in absolutes, I guess your response is understandable, from both of you actually.

    I didn't say the US had become an authoritarian state. So far at least, the Constitution and Bill of Rights have prevented that. What I said was I perceive a tendency towards authoritarianism in many parts of the world, including in the US. And I see as symptoms of this the growth of religious fundamentalism and blind obedience to political leadership.

    I know we don't like any comparisons to Islamic fundamentalists, but "Allah akbar" is the same message, just a different language. You both bow to the authority of your faith, including the role of women in it. And let me guess, both of you think amending the Constitution to outlaw such things as flag-burning and gay marriage are pretty good, and Godly, ideas? Decorated war veterans like the Johns Murtha and Kerry are cowards, unpatriotic, etc. because they challenge Bush's authority. Like it or not, these are all authoritarian concepts.

    Now I dont expect either of you to agree with me.(why start now?):p This is just food for thought.
     
  6. Aug 27, 2006 #26 of 173
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    Sorry, couldn't resist. I just find it funny when folks complain about Bush's stormtrooper type authoritarianism.... and they don't see the irony of their statements. If we REALLY lived in an authoritarian state, you wouldn't be able to make any such statements. And I do think you've made that type of allegation. Besides, as usual, your assessment of faith, and people of faith, is misguided, and wrong. To make that allegation of all religions and all people of faith is just plain wrong. Compare the spread of Christianity - look at the countries where it's taken hold. Those are the countries that have done things like outlawed slavery, emancipated women, and you see increased liberty in those countries. In islamist countries, you still have women in burkas. To make the assessment that all people who believe in God would strap bombs to our bodies and blow up innocents is wrong and insulting. No, you never made the allegation that Christians would do that, per se, but you seem to categorize us all in the same way... and if these islamofascists would do that... why it stands to reason the Christians would too... if only given the marching orders.

    And I never said that Murtha or Kerry were cowards, nor did I say that they were unpatriotic BECAUSE the disagree with the administration. I consider Kerry a traitor for what he did to his fellow soldiers after coming back from Vietnam. And going to Paris to "negotiate" with the North Vietnamese, when he was neither appointed nor elected to such a position, is traitorous in my opinion (source is the book "Unfit for Command", complete with picture of Kerry meeting with the North Vietnamese). Also, did you realize that Kerry's seen as a hero... IN North Vietnam? They have a big picture with him in it, in a museum celebrating the communist government. Again, in "Unfit for Command." And again, complete with picture. Someone like that shouldn't be allowed to vote, much less sit in the Oval Office.

    As for Murtha, I don't recall saying anything about him... but since you brought him up, what the heck. Murtha, I believe, is being used by the left. I believe that there are folks that are used by the left to push their political agenda. Some such folks don't handle the limelight real well, and are frankly glad when their 15 minutes are up. Others don't handle the end of the limelight so well. They don't want the party to end, so to still be considered relevent, and to get on TV, they start making more and more ridiculous statements. Case in point - Murtha didn't call for a withdrawal from Iraq, from his perspective. He called for an active redeployment - moving troops "just over the horizon" so they could be called back in theater at a moment's notice. Where would he station those troops? Why, close to 5000 miles away in Okinawa. Goofy to say the least.

    Then there's Haditha. After a firefight in which civilians were killed, an investigation was started - to see if our soldiers acted irresponsibly. Charges weren't even levelled against the Marines in question when Murtha made a statement, calling these guys murderers! I guess that's what the left calls "supporting the troops", eh? Oh, yeah, and a report just came down on Haditha. While some soldiers are still being investigated, the report itself says that the soldiers didn't act irresponsibly. They were fired upon, and responded with a reasonable amount of force.

    I question Kerry's service (when the doctor who examined one of his "wounds" found the notion that Kerry would receive a Purple Heart for such a would laughable, I have to call his service into question). As for Murtha - I appreciate and laud his service to his country. I don't question HIS patriotism... just his judgement.
     
  7. Aug 27, 2006 #27 of 173
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    I agree - I know, don't fall out of your chair :) There are many women of faith who've done remarkable things. Mother Teresa is an excellent example. Coincidentally enough, today's homily incorporated her story - and what she did for the poor in Calcutta... especially since she was part of a teaching order of nuns, and actually had a pretty sweet gig teaching in a nice school in India. She left her order so that she could administer to the poor she saw on the streets every day.
     
  8. Aug 28, 2006 #28 of 173
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    What part of most of our churches are in the north, and not in the south don't you understand? We traditionally have not had as many congregations in the southern states. What I said was that people are moving out of the areas in which we have traditionally been strong. Farming areas are declining in population as farms become larger and farm families become fewer. Our local school district declines significantly every year. The people are leaving. My own congregation is still in good shape, because we have the resources, as well as excitement about our church and faith so that as other churches decline ours stays stable, if not growing. However, if your statement about going into the world and making disciples is supposed to be saying that we don't do evangelism, the UCC has had several hundred new church starts in the past few years.

    I can also name positive aspects of the UCC's life that are just as encouraging as the LCMS seminary link you found. Our seminaries are also full. After our ad campaign last year we gained many new members. It is hard to know exactly how many were as a direct result of the ad campaign, but the number of hits on our websight went up dramatically, and the timing of an increase in new members would seem to be more than a coincidence. BTW, after the long discussion about the ads last year, the more benign ads, showing a little girl doing the "church prayer" didn't get nearly the positive response as the "bouncer" ad. The edgy stuff is what got people's attention.

    And as I said, and you had to deny, we have had a number of pastors, members, churches, and groups of churches who have joined our denomination because they appreciate being part of a "culturally relevant" denomination that recognizes people's needs and brings Jesus' message of hope to them.
     
  9. Aug 28, 2006 #29 of 173
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I take it you have not read Philemon, a short little letter written by Paul to Philemon, in reference to Onesimus, the slave of Philemon. Reading it now it seems obvious that Paul was telling Philemon that he should free Onesimus, but since he leaves to Philemon to decide, slave holders said that Paul supported them in deciding not to free their slaves.

    And then of course Paul said that male and female, rich and poor, slave and free, were all part of the body. Since males and females were going to keep on being males and females, then there was no reason why slaves and free wouldn't also continue in their roles. Your lack of knowledge of the use of the Bible to defend slavery is not evidence that it didn't happen. It is just evidence that this interpretation of the Bible has fallen far out of favor.
     
  10. Aug 28, 2006 #30 of 173
    Laverne

    Laverne Guest

    2,498
    0
    Feb 17, 2005
    There was a discussion?? :blush:

    I liked the one where people got ejected from the church pew! (That was UCC right? :eek:) That was really funny and I laughed so hard! Sadly, true in many congregations, but I thought it was hilarious! !rolling

    And obviously I remember it! :)
     
  11. Aug 28, 2006 #31 of 173
    jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    In a probably futile attempt to put this thread to rest, I will make a few more comments and then you may have the last word if you so desire. And I suspect you WILL desire.:p

    First, whatever "type of allegation" you "think" I've made, the truth is I have neither ever stated the USA is an "authoritarian state", nor that I can't make any statements I want to in the USA, excepting of course "fire in a crowded theater" type stuff. On paper at least, the USA is likely the "freest" nation on the planet and I'd like to keep it that way.:yesman: But whenever you are the superlative of anything,(the freest, the smartest, the fastest, etc.) you're probably going to have to conscientiously work to maintan that position. If you're simply content to rest on your laurels, you are likely to find you are not the "-est" of anything anymore.:(

    So I should hope we agree the USA is the "freest" nation, or at least among the "freest". That does not mean we are necessarily free enough or couldn't be "freer". And I certainly don't accept the argument we are TOO free, that the "world has changed" and this is cause that we should curtail some of our freedoms.

    And it also doesn't mean there are not the elements of authoritarianism that I have speculated on, nor that our inherent "freeness" will automatically prevent these elements from growing or eventually gaining power.

    And that is all I have done here, engaged in speculation. Speculation based on my observations and interpretations of current and past events, particularly religious and political events. Have I tried to present these speculations as forcefully and convincingly as possible? Of course. Just as you try to forcefully and convincingly attempt to refute them.

    By its very nature, authoritarianism is rather hard to quantify. About the best you can do is identify often nebulous and ambiguous trends. And even the most authoritarian regimes, and most of the people that live that live under them will deny they are authoritarian, and that the measures we may interpret as authoritarian are in fact necessary to their security and prosperity, and even their "freedoms".

    At least in the context of religion,(and I would say to a large extent politically too) you are on the inside looking out and I am on the outside looking in. While this may give you more insight into the details of religion, it is at best difficult to maintain impartiality. Just as it is more difficult to detect movement and direction from a windowless train or airplane, so too it may be more difficult to sense the movement and direction of a movement that one is immersed in.

    I won't pretend I don't have my own particular biases and prejudices in this arena either. But at least more so, I am an outside observer. And from this relatively uninvolved perspective, I believe I am in a better position to clearly detect the movement and direction of religion. And I see it moving in a more authoritarian direction. After all, almost all religions are inherently authoritarian by design. In nearly all cases the ultimate "authority" of a God or gods is the very reason they exist at all.
     
  12. Aug 28, 2006 #32 of 173
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    Since you offered, ok I'll take the last word :) I'm basing my assessment of how you view the state of things in this country by your statements in things like the NSA program thread. As for people in authoritarian countries not knowing that they're in such a country.... I can't say I understand that. There are people in prison right now because they've spoken out against their current regime. People under Hussein understood that if you speak out against the regime, you go away for good. Look at all the dissidents in Cuba, e.g.

    You do make a good point - sometimes, if you're led to believe that stuff out in the rest of the world is no better than where you are (or alot worse) you may not see a reason for bucking the system. There was an example of this during the cold war. One of the US networks did a story on poverty in the US. The politburo in the Soviet Union saw this as a way to paint the US in a bad light. They carried the segment on Soviet TV. They wanted to paint us as being part of an inferior system. Well, that decision will go right up there with New Coke in the pantheon of bad ideas. Instead of sending the message that capitalism was inferior, it did the very opposite. It showed the poor in this country with things like cars, and TVs, and air conditioners. It showed that one of the big problems that the poor in the US face is obesity. When you're facing starvation, obesity doesn't look so bad. And when you see the poor in the US as having a lifestyle that's superior to the privaleged in your own country... well that has a pretty strong influence.

    What does that story have to do with anything? That's precisely what I see happening the middle east. When you're told repeatedly that you live in an area where "democracy can't take hold..." And then you see countries around you throwing off the shackles of oppression, and bringing in those very types of government - it has a big impact.

    As for your assessment of organized religion - you couldn't be more wrong. It's not essentially authoritarian. Some religions are... but not all. Not even most. And I don't understand how being outside gives you a better perspective. When you go for a job, you talk about how long you've spent within a certain field. Try throwing this out during an interview "no, I've never actually done that work... but I'm an outside observer, which gives me a better perspective..." and see how well that works out. What it does is it gives you a warped perspective of religion. As you can tell, I took real umbrage at your assumptions about what I believed (I've referenced them several times already) - why do you believe that I believe that? Could it be that you have a bigotted view of people of faith? I believe that it is.
     
  13. Aug 28, 2006 #33 of 173
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    I don't think anyone said "some" did not try to use the Bible to justify slavery. People have tried to misuse the Bible for quite some time, even using it to try and justify marriage between two men or two women. :D That doesn't make it right. Scripture does say some things that bother us in our "Enlightened" view. The Bible clearly does not support slavery. But neither does it endorse rebellion, particularly in the new testiment. I wonder just what Paul would have had to say about those New Englanders who stirred things up with their King, or that yankee from Illinois, who started the civil war rather than let the south just form the government of their own people. :) God makes it clear that he wants relationships to be right, and seems to concentrate on the individuals. If submitting oneself to slavery wins someone and saves them - its worth it. Just look at the life of Joseph. Its about attitude, character and relationships - not politics.
     
  14. Aug 28, 2006 #34 of 173
    pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    DO you consider Ohio a northern state and/or part of the rust belt? They did side with the yankees in the civil war and spilled their blood at Gettysberg for the blue - so I would think so. Plenty of Southern Baptist churches, everywhere according to my search on SBC.net. Kind of hard to do, since you have to enter individual cities to search, but it looks like one can find a southern baptist church pretty much anywhere there, without really looking too hard. Plenty of Methodist, and other "Conservative" too. FRom one other web site, it indicated 15% of Michigan call themselves BAptists, 25% of missourians, almost 18% of MAryland. Yes, Baptists have a very strong showing in the south, but are present and doing well in northern states as well. And I haven't counted Methodists, or any other conservative protestant denomination, nor orthodox Catholicism. And I think the link shows that the Lutherans, which you claimed were in trouble although they're conservative, contridicts your claim.

    I won't say we're doing everything right, I think my own denomination still does a pitiful job of evangelism compared to what happens by Christian believers in other lands. But there is still growth - something I do not think can be said for liberal denominations. And while that growth may be less in northern states than southern states, I would say there is growth. Meanwhile liberal denominations have experienced national decay. The question one has to ask is why? If you find it comforting to blame it on changing demographics, so be it. But then you have to explain church growth elsewhere which uphold sound doctrine and scripture.

    And what does this have to do with the subject thread? Not really sure. I don't have the facts as to who the grandmother was teaching - children or adult. Again, I would say most all southern baptists would have no problem with a woman teaching children, teach adult women, co-teaching with their husband a coed adult class. A woman teaching adult men alone, probably not, but even that maybe. But one does not have to understand everything the Bible says to do or not do - but in following what the Bible says (rather than making excuses for it) it works and going one's own way usually ends in failure.

    You say your denomination is in trouble because people are moving out. I say that does not make sence. That movement happens everywhere. When I lived in Orlando, most of the people there were new. It was a dynamic of the economy of the region-many moving in/out, a lot of turnover. I've moved too. I didn't stop going to church because I moved. Even if people didn't move and the farms remained, they still move eventually - they die. I've been in churches on occasion filled with the dead (spiritually dead) playing church. I've been in many churches very much alive, because God is there working. God leads me to those churches. perhaps God really does honor the churches that are faithful to His complete word.
     
  15. Aug 28, 2006 #35 of 173
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    You MISSED that. It went on for page after page. :grin:
    Yes, the ejection ad is UCC. I loved it as well, and yes, the ads like that are the ones people remember.
     
  16. Aug 28, 2006 #36 of 173
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    You can believe whatever you want, but unfortunately it was more than "some".
     
  17. Aug 29, 2006 #37 of 173
    Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    I made a statement that the Southern Baptists have become more conservative in the past 30 years than they were traditionally, with tests of faith they didn't use to have. You took offense at that and had to prove that my denomination doesn't have sound doctine and scripture, and is decaying. I made a statement earlier that agrees with you, the grandma could most likely teach children etc, anybody but adult men.

    Interesting that you have found one encouraging link about the LCMS, and that "proves" I am wrong and they are doing great. Also interesting that you classify Methodists as conservative. Methodists are in the same or worse shape than the UCC. BTW, our fastest growing congregation is in Chicago, with more than 10,000 members, and a number of our new churches in the south are doing just fine.

    The only "demographic" that you seem to think matters is whether the church is liberal or conservative, in that you feel the conservative churches are faithful to His complete word, while of course a liberal church cannot possibly be faithful to God. Even though you admit some churches, I can only assume conservative, unless you somehow wondered into a liberal church by mistake, are spiritually dead. I believe your assumption is in error, and liberal/conservative have nothing to do with the spiritual health of a church and how alive it is. What matters is the spirit of the people, and how open they are to being filled by God's Spirit. I can point out conservative congregations that are dead, and liberal congregations that are very much alive.

    I can only tell you, and you can deny it, but ministers talk with each other. Even ministers of other denominations talk with each other. We share things with other pastors we don't always tell lay people. In particular right now, Southern Baptist pastors are afraid to let their congregations know they find the tests of faith and ultraconservative aspect of the denomination's leadership troubling, and a number have left the denomination. Take a look at the turnover in pastoral leadership in SB churches. It is very troubling for me as a pastor to see the rate among churches as a whole, and especially among SB churches.
     
  18. Aug 29, 2006 #38 of 173
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    Woah, wait a second. I never said that the Bible was never used to justify slavery. Where did my posting say that? I asked the question: where does the Bible ENDORSE slavery? You're right, I'm not a Biblical scholar, and I'm not closed to people providing me any evidence to the contrary. I didn't ask that question as any kind of accusation - I posed a legitimate question. To my knowledge, I find nothing in the Bible that endorses slavery. I NEVER said that people never used it to that effect.
     
  19. Aug 29, 2006 #39 of 173
    jpl

    jpl Hall Of Fame

    2,776
    6
    Jul 9, 2006
    Not to pick a fight, but I found that ad campaign obnoxious. First off, the notion that conservative or orthodox congregations don't welcome the elderly, or people with small babies, is insulting to say the least (sit in on a Sunday Mass in my chuch, and listen to all the babies cry and tell me that's reflective of the truth). Second, part of what the ad was saying is that "all types of behavior are a-ok in our book." Since when is it bad to call into question some types of behavior? I'm not saying you should judge people (only God can do that) - but I believe you need to judge behavior. If someone is engaging in a lifestyle that's considered sinful or destructive by the church, then embracing that lifestyle is doing them no favors.
     
  20. Aug 29, 2006 #40 of 173
    Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,899
    207
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    Agreed.

    For example, gays may be welcome in the midst of a mostly straight congregation,
    but the gay lifestyle which typically involves certain overt acts of sodomy, which, in
    the bible, is clearly a sin against God, is not. Therefor, churches should welcome
    gay congregants who forsake their sinful ways, but reject those gays who refuse
    to stop sinning.

    The same can be said of a (former) thief, a (former) murderer, or a (former) adulterer,
    none of whom would be welcomed if they continued to repeat those sinful acts.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page