[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/3/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/3/96 [17:02] ProfG

Master Index Current Directory Index Go to SkepticTank Go to Human Rights activist Keith Henson Go to Scientology cult

Skeptic Tank!

[ref001] apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/3/96 apologetics: DEBATE LOGS - 3/3/96 [17:02] ProfG (wgreen01@fiudial95.fiu.edu) joined #apologetics. [17:13] skulls (wonners@ joined #apologetics. [17:14] hi skulls [17:15] hello [17:15] how are you today? [17:15] feeling alright, you? [17:16] pretty good :-) [17:16] apologetics? [17:16] yes [17:16] apologia = Greek "defence" [17:16] apologetics = defence of the Faith [17:17] what faith is being defended here? [17:17] Christianity [17:17] what is your paradigm, skulls? [17:18] christianity is not my thing [17:18] that is interesting. what is your "thing"? [17:19] I don't follow anything spiritual [17:19] skulls: do you believe that only the material exists? [17:19] hapi (ssparaci@medea.gp.usm.edu) joined #Apologetics. [17:19] hi hapi [17:19] no [17:19] hello :) [17:19] so what exists besides the material, skulls? [17:21] so what exists besides the material, skulls? [17:21] so what exists besides the material, skulls? [17:21] no, flooding....ok? ;) [17:21] ops can flood here, hapi LOL [17:22] I believe that there could be a non-physical plane [17:22] hehehehe :) [17:22] skulls: what is your proof? [17:22] sounds like pergatory... [17:22] I said could [17:22] howeveryoudecidetospellthat :) [17:22] yes, what is your proof that it *could* [17:22] what makes you believe that, in other words [17:23] I just don't believe in a god that controls out lives [17:23] He doesn't control :) [17:23] skulls: that is a pronouncement, not proof of anything. WHY do you believe that? [17:24] because there has been no proof [17:24] skull, how doyou know gravity exists? [17:24] How do you know wind exists? [17:24] what about air? [17:24] Mode change '+o hapi ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [17:25] skulls: there is plenty of proof, but you reject transcendental proof due to your presuppositions, not because it is not good proof [17:25] CTCP PING: 825891880 from hapi (ssparaci@medea.gp.usm.edu) to #Apologetics [17:25] oi, Prof...you're lagged, guy :) [17:25] skulls: "I don't believe the Bible, so I don't believe any proof that the Bible is true" [17:25] I am? [17:26] 825891881 seconds ;0 [17:26] :) [17:26] heheheh [17:26] skulls (wonners@ left irc: sorry, not interested [17:26] ;) [17:26] lamer [17:26] yup ------------------------------------- [21:14] Acolyte (st_aidan@delta1.deltanet.com) joined #apologetics. [21:16] witness (brown09@ joined #apologetics. [21:17] lo [21:17] ProfG (wgreen01@ joined #apologetics. [21:17] hi [21:18] hiya :-) [21:18] witness (brown09@ left #apologetics. [21:18] BlackKat (silver@ip033.lax.primenet.com) joined #apologetics. [21:18] bullo [21:18] hi black [21:18] Judith (Sandra@dial091.skypoint.net) joined #apologetics. [21:18] hullo I mean [21:18] hey there [21:18] Mode change '+o Acolyte ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [21:19] blackkat now about homosexuality, why do you think it is genetic? [21:20] Action: Alcuin notes that judith was correct to point out that the issue of whether or not a behavior is genetically determined is logically distinct from the ethical evaluation of that behavior [21:20] thanks [21:20] brain differences have been found in the brains of straight and gay men, as well as chomosome differences amoung gay, lesbain and straight people. [21:20] true [21:20] ;) [21:20] ?me notes that Judith was not the ONLY one to point that out. :P [21:20] blackkat so that means what? [21:20] tip o' sham to Acolyte [21:20] blackkat differences mean what? [21:20] heh [21:20] sham=tam [21:21] Judith is incorrect in assuming genetic tendencies are automatically bad, such as linking gayness to being addicted to alcohol. [21:21] black, i didn't assume that, you did. [21:21] po (qmspa@all-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [21:21] balckkat she assume dno such thing, she merely pointed out tha they are NOT ipso facto good either [21:21] hi po [21:21] blackkat differences mean what? [21:21] Acolyte, sexual behaviour is regulated in the hypothalmus... [21:21] po (qmspa@all-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [21:21] i was merely making ht epoint that genetic tendencies don't justify behavior [21:21] balckat what do the differnce mean? [21:21] ok so? [21:21] blackat so the differences were there whenthey were born? [21:21] po (qmspa@all-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [21:22] anselm (nobyte@slip191.UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [21:22] acolyte, it isnt going to mean anything to you. [21:22] hello all [21:22] You are poised to shoot it down. [21:22] hiya anselm [21:22] blackkat: the issue is not that gayness is bad because of the status of an ad hoc analog. The issue is that whether or not a behavior is bad is determined biblically, and acoholism and gayness both happen to fail to make the cut. [21:22] blackkat wellperhaps if you tell me it might [21:22] Hello [21:22] You are not interested to educate yourself. [21:22] blackkat how do you know that? [21:22] black, someone is not lacking in education when they disagree with you. [21:22] blackkat don't insult me ok. [21:22] Acolyte & alcuin, you uneducated dolts [21:22] Can we avoid perjoratives and judgments, please? [21:22] black if you wish to dialog DON"T INSULT [21:22] The size of this area of the brain helps to determine sexual behaviour. [21:22] ;-> [21:22] ProfG: :) [21:22] lol [21:22] black ok [21:22] they merely disagree. there is no need to insult a person's intelligence and assault their character [21:23] Acolye, how did i unsult you? Come on, toughen your hide. [21:23] Stevve (shannon@ joined #apologetics. [21:23] black so, was the difference there whent hey were born or after? [21:23] acolyte, how did i insult you????? [21:23] Blackkat: Does this cerebral structure determine the behavior of a homosexual 100%? [21:23] black saying I don't want to learn is an insult and attacking me personally and not dealing with the topic [21:23] black so, was the difference there whent hey were born or after? [21:23] hi stevve [21:24] hello! [21:24] Action: Alcuin hands Acolyte a moist towelette "here, your keyboard is dripping...." ;) [21:24] acolyte, i do highly doubt your interest in learning as you go by what the bible says and nothing else. [21:24] The research I've read suggests that there is a genetic component to male homosexuality, but that it is not controlling. [21:24] blackkat oh well thats nice of you to read my mind [21:24] MacBinary (ircle@dial196208.wbm.ca) joined #apologetics. [21:24] BlackKat, you're saying that one cannot be intellectually rigorous and believe the Bible. I don't agree at all. [21:24] Balckat 1. I am not a Protestant. 2 I go by Tradition adn Reason as well. [21:24] hi [21:25] Acolyte, the hypothalmus is found to be consistanly smaller in gay males, in realtion to straight. This size also happens to coincide with the size of females. [21:25] black, i could apply that to your exclusion of eveyrthing but an unstable scientific community [21:25] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: Homosexuality: wrong in more ways than one... [21:25] Hi MacB, welcome to apologetics! [21:25] hi mac [21:25] zx` (well@robertk.accessone.com) joined #apologetics. [21:25] blackkat ok, THAT I know, but was the difference there BEFORE they were born or after? [21:25] You see, blackkat, if the genetic *predisposition* to behave homosexually is only a predisposition, then it follows that any specific homosexual *act* is partially determined by the actor's volition. Hence, the behavior is suscep tible to ethical evaluation as choice. [21:25] before. [21:25] it develops in utero. [21:25] Blackkat how do you know that? [21:25] Black what study has shown that to be the case? [21:25] Alcuin, are you straight? [21:26] Acolyte, i should have made a copy of it, as it appeared in the newspaper a few years ago. [21:26] Black that is irrelevant as I know ppl who are gay that think you are wrong as well [21:26] It was quite interesting. [21:26] To me, the gospel is essentially about unconditional love & all else is irrelevant. [21:26] black I know what it says, I have read a number of studys on the topic [21:26] That's how I approach the gay "issue" [21:26] blackkat: my sexual orientation is not relevant to the objective validity of my argument. [21:26] ANselm a Cosmic Hallmakr Card eh? [21:26] just read a 3 page spread in seattle times about the genetic disposition of homosexuality by a non - christian - according to the article there is none and the original postulator of that idea has admitted that to be now correct [21:26] Hallmark even [21:27] Excrement (TheEnd@ joined #apologetics. [21:27] Alcuin, it is very relevant. What is the answer? [21:27] Black what study has shown that to be the case? [21:27] zx, who's the author of that? I'd like ot read it. [21:27] Black so they did a study on Gay fetuses? [21:27] Excrement (TheEnd@ left #apologetics. [21:27] these were autopsies. [21:27] Blackkat did they do a Study on Gay Fetuses? [21:27] anselm: But the Father's love is not unconditional. It is contingent upon obedience to the law. [21:27] Black auttopisies of Adults or fetuses? [21:28] i will have to get the seattle times artidcle - but listen i lie not - the original work by the originor postulator has now disclaimed both and his original lab work is now recognized by the scientific community to be very flawed and not repeatable [21:28] Acolyte, you have to calm down and wait a moment for me to amswer your questions..i may be lagged, and you keep repeating yourself. [21:28] blackkat: demonstrate the logical relevance and then I'll supply the requested data. [21:28] adults. [21:28] Alcuin fortunately not OUR obediance initially [21:28] So much the worse for the law, Alcuin. [21:28] black I am perfectly calm. I willwait [21:28] I prefer to accept grace. [21:28] alcuin, im not going to ask you a question them sit and explain myself. Forget it. [21:28] Infinite, mind-staggering grace. [21:28] anselm there is no grace without the law [21:29] Nick change: BlackKat -> RedTango [21:29] anselm: me too. Good thing that Jesus fulfilled the Father's condition of perfect obedience. [21:29] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit. [21:29] anyway goodbye - just came to say hello :-) [21:29] zx` (well@robertk.accessone.com) left #apologetics. [21:29] The more interesting thing is WHY it is considered a sin. [21:29] black so it was adults.hhhmm so how do they know that these adults had it when they were fetuses? [21:29] what a surprise, it's RT [21:29] I would like to get your feelings on that. [21:29] Alcuin thats an understatement. [21:30] anselm: " Infinite, mind-staggering grace." Amen. Eye has not seen... [21:30] Profg "RedTango-I do not find any lack of Logic in Atheism particularly disturbing..." :P [21:30] LOL [21:30] Acolyte, when i do more reasearch, i will give you more information. I am not going to fill in gaps or make up things here, so i cant asnwer too much about an article i read long ago. [21:30] Yes, Alcuin, ergo I've had to part w/ some traditional beliefs, like eternal damnation, etc [21:30] Redtango ok [21:30] Judith (Sandra@dial091.skypoint.net) left #apologetics. [21:31] RedTango: homosexual behavior is considered a sin [a] because sin is a lack of conformity to the Law, and [b] the Law states that homosexual behavior is a sin. [21:31] W (cservice@undernet.org) returned to #apologetics. [21:31] po (qmspa@all-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for po[all-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com] [21:31] Red well I know what the study showed. I read it when it came out [21:31] Mode change '+o W ' by okc.ok.us.undernet.org [21:31] MacBinary (ircle@dial196208.wbm.ca) left #apologetics. [21:31] Acolyte, last time i was in this channel i told you i misspoke. That sentence that you keep repeating was an admitted mistake on my part, why do you keep bringing it up? [21:31] Red the study was done on 25 MALE homosexual adutls, over 20 of which had full blown AIDS. [21:32] Redtango because it was so juicy, sorry I will not bring it up again. [21:32] RedTango: That's admirable of you to state straightforwardly that the article is not on hand and that you only partly recall its contents. [21:32] Alcuin, the "Law"? You mean what the bible says. [21:32] BILLnJILL (longjohn@ joined #apologetics. [21:32] BILLnJILL (longjohn@ left #apologetics. [21:33] RedTango: "Law"="What the bible says"----well, I'd put it somewhat differently, but that'll do for these purposes. [21:33] Red the scientists did note differences in the brain but they did not know if AIDS caused the differences or the sexual behavior, so, they are not sure if the differences CAUSED the behavior, OR resutled from the behavior OR the diseases, and dieseases [21:33] that they died from [21:33] Red THAT Is all ANY of the studies have shown [21:33] AIDS alters sexual behaviour? Now who would ever suggest THAT? [21:33] Redtango as to date there are no Cases studies showing the life of a homosexual and their development [21:34] Redtango they don't know, that is all I am saying [21:34] Redtango because that is all the studies have shown [21:34] Action: Alcuin observes [again] that the issue of biological determinism is irrelevant unless the behavior is beyond volition. [21:34] I can only go by real people i know, and these people have told me that they knew they liked the same sex as children, and interestingly, they all came from the traditional family home..a mom and dad. [21:35] Action: Acolyte notes that he is genetically disposed to have sex with women at age 13 and up but that is still unethical until he mARRIES one of them. [21:35] How can AIDS be responsible for making someone gay? Gayness isnt just a human trait, animals are gay as well. [21:35] RedTango: Ac's claim is that the difference in cerebral structure could have been a result of behavior, or a result of disease; not that the behavior resulted from the disease. [21:35] animals are gay, LOL [21:35] RedTango: i.e., read his comment again *slowly* [21:35] Redtango, sure animals do it, are we not more than animals? [21:35] Prof, they certainly are. [21:36] acolyte, we are animals. [21:36] Redtango, a very small number of animals are gay, as are a very small number of humans [21:36] with huge brains. [21:36] po (qmspa@all-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [21:36] Redtango if we are animals then rape is natural as is anything else we do, because we are parts of anture [21:36] Redtango Naturalism = Ethical Nihilism [21:36] Where did you read any study that suggests that AIDS actually MAKES you gay? [21:36] Redtango I did not say that [21:36] acolyte, everything we do, good or bad, is natural. [21:36] " they did not know if AIDS caused the differences or [if] the sexual behavior [caused the differences]". [21:37] Red I SAID that they are not sure if IADS caused it, contributed it or vice versa. [21:37] alcuin, where did you read this? [21:37] Red I JUST SAID IT [21:37] po (qmspa@all-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [21:37] Red if everythng we do is natural then NOTHING Is good or bad [21:37] acolyte, thats why we invent laws and bibles. [21:37] Red: Acolyte *did* *not* *say* that AIDS determines sexual behavior. Your are hereby challenged to demonstrate any place where he did make that claim. [21:38] Red so we live by myths eh? we invent an ethics myth? [21:38] yes [21:38] Red so you are living a lie eh? Ethics are an illusion? [21:38] it isnt a lie, it is a system we create to determine what we feel is right and wrong. [21:39] W (cservice@undernet.org) got netsplit. [21:39] Red so what is the difference between you and a fundamentalist? According to you they hold to mythology, apparently, so do you. [21:39] Red: the issue is what determines structural deviance in the cerebrum, whether AIDS, behavior, or genetics. [21:39] W (cservice@undernet.org) returned to #apologetics. [21:39] Red but out feelings are part of nature, You are saying that there are NO ethics, but we make them up, ethics are a myth, and ullusion, Make-beleive, A lie [21:39] po (qmspa@all-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [21:39] Mode change '+o W ' by okc.ok.us.undernet.org [21:40] got quiet in here... [21:40] po just wait a second [21:40] ethics are real. we invent things that become "real" and stay "real" as long as we put value on them. [21:40] Stevve (shannon@ left irc: Ping timeout for Stevve[] [21:40] redtango but any value is a bio-chemcial reaction, there is no real "value". It is names nothing in reality, hence values do not exist innature [21:40] Red what does the term "value" name in nature? [21:41] Red show me a value? [21:41] does it have mass? [21:41] Location? [21:41] velocity? [21:41] No [21:41] It is a biochemcial reaction, nothing more [21:41] Stevvve (shannon@ joined #apologetics. [21:41] re steve [21:41] hi! [21:41] Red the best you can say is that in you NAture has X beleifs [21:41] hmmm, so is the bible the basis of all sexual moraity? [21:42] Steve what do you mean? [21:42] oops morality [21:42] ""we invent things that become "real" and stay "real" as long as we put value on them."" Like the tooth fairy? [21:42] Stevvve, I would say that God is the basis of all morality. [21:42] yes, i would too... [21:42] Value is intangible, it is concept that works because a group of people agree to it. I dont know why you keep reducing everything down to biochemical meaninglessness. [21:42] God, not the Bible. [21:42] Alcuin I prefer pink elephants. [21:42] Steve, God's character is the basis for all morality. [21:42] Red so if a group of ppl agree to kill you its fine by you? [21:42] Alcuin, well, i think God and the tooth fairy are very much alike. [21:43] acolyte, to them, it is fine. [21:43] and many countries are like that. [21:43] red: YOUR paradigm is "reducing everything down to biochemical meaninglessness." [21:43] Red there is nothing in nature thatis intangible. [21:43] that is their values. [21:43] you dont like those values? Move. [21:43] Red, that's because you've never studied Christianity seriously. [21:43] I'm not sure why Scripture is used to condemn homosexuality [21:43] Red concepts are biochemical reactions is all [21:43] RedTango: So then, since a substantial community under Hitler decided to kill homosexuals, the mentally ill, and the Jewish, that's ethical for them cuz they all agree on it? [21:43] Red 22 million ppl moved in Germany...right into the GAS CHAMBERS [21:43] i mean, its not like it was understood to be an orientation in those days [21:44] You guys, i am hounded with questions here. i can only deal with one at a time. [21:44] red ok fine [21:44] Action: Acolyte waits with patience [21:44] Red: I'll not pose further questions to you for now. [21:44] NO W [21:44] NOW [21:44] NOW [21:44] heheheh [21:44] Alcuin, that is their values, if they want to kill people. They agreed to it, it is their set of values. Do i agree with those values? No. [21:44] Stevvve, I don't think their understanding of homosexuality was deficient, nor do I think that our modern understanding is particularly enlightened. [21:45] Red the question is not what values, but ARE there ANY values at all? [21:45] Red all "values" name in your worldview are chemcials [21:45] Steve: our knowledge of God depends on the propositional content of the Bible. Why do you set the two at odds? [21:45] po, the bible says to KILL gays. We dont kill gays. I would say we are a bit more enlightened. [21:45] just chemicals is all [21:45] Well, po, i do agree with you mostly, but i do think we have a better understanding of it than they did. [21:45] Topic changed by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: "Reducing everything down to biochemical meaninglessness" [21:45] yes... [21:45] Agreed w/RT [21:45] acolyte, it was chemicals that wrote the bible. [21:45] LOL [21:45] Red the Bible says kill rapists, we don't kill rapists. I guess we are a little less enlightened [21:46] red ok fine, how can chemcials be logically true or false? [21:46] Steve: what is the standard by which you determine whether a given understanding is "superior" or "inferior"? [21:46] ania (trey@ joined #apologetics. [21:46] Red, you've just contradicted yourself. That was not a preference. That was a statement of a belief regarding an absolute standrd of right and wrong. [21:46] hi ania [21:46] hmmm, ok here's some more scripture on Biblical morality...maybe this will help [21:46] we like to quote the verses about homosexuality, divorce and the like... [21:46] please, do help us, Steve [21:46] but not these... [21:46] Action: Alcuin likes *all* the verses. [21:46] The bible seems to condone a whole lot of murder. [21:47] Either you believe there are only preferences, or you believe that one belief is really better than another. You can't have both. [21:47] we like to quote more verses than those... [21:47] Redtango not all killing is murder [21:47] red ok fine, how can chemcials be logically true or false? [21:47] zx` (well@robertk.accessone.com) joined #apologetics. [21:47] 1. Thou shalt sleep with thy brother's wife and make her pregnant (Gen. 38:6-10) [21:47] hey zx [21:47] murder is unethical killing. The bible only condones ethical killing. [21:47] hi [21:47] ania (trey@ left #apologetics. [21:47] 2. Thou shalt take two wives and their maids and they shall enter into a breeeding contest with each other (Gen. 29:31 - 30:24). [21:47] Steve leverite marriage, That is based in two things, 1. That the brother is dead/ and 2 the borther the and the wife consent to it. [21:47] Steve: That is the levirate institution, and was intended to insure the ongoing viability of the 12-tribe structure in the OT economy. Nothing wrong with that. [21:48] steve: bad quote after all [21:48] acolyte, i dont understand your question about brain chemicals being true or false. People are subjective creatures and their decisions and choices as far as what they feel is the path to take are quite varied. [21:48] 3. Thou shalt tell your parents to go fetch you a woman, then her little sister, and finally go by thyself to find a prostitute (Judges 14, 15, 16) [21:48] Judith (Sandra@dial091.skypoint.net) joined #apologetics. [21:48] Humans have the capacity for being both logical and illogical, especially when emotions are involved. [21:48] zx` (well@robertk.accessone.com) left #apologetics. [21:48] Redtango, ok, what governs any chemcial in your body? NAtrual law right? [21:48] 4. Thou shalt kill your neighboring countrymen, their young children and mothers, and bring bakc an army of young virgin girls so thou mayest sleep with them (Judges 21:7-24) [21:49] acolyte, is this "natural law" topic your personal fetish? It seems we wind up talking about this each and everytime we speak. [21:49] Steve the Bible describes many things, is Judges describing or PREscribing as in the LAw? [21:49] Red because It seems youdo not see the issues is why [21:49] Steve the Bible describes many things, is Judges describing or PREscribing as in the LAw? [21:49] Redtango, ok, what governs any chemcial in your body? NAtrual law right? [21:49] Redtango, just please tell me. [21:50] Steve: Exceptions to God's ethical standards are not permitted except when specifically mandated by God himself. Rahab is a fine example of this principle. She tells a falsehood to save a life. Her telling a falsehood does not constitute a lie because saving a life is a sufficiently compelling reason to tell falsehoods. Likewise, with God-mandated exceptions to the normal institutional structure of marriage. [21:50] Interesting how we try to look into context into these things.... [21:50] but it doesnt matter when we use verses to condemn, say...homosexuals [21:50] Steve, is that describing a historical event or prescribing behavior? [21:50] Acolyte, what "iisues" do i fail to see? [21:50] Stevvve, context please. [21:50] yes, go on. [21:50] Stevvve, context please. Gen 29 - 30 cites such an example, but does not approve or recommend such a course. [21:50] ProfG, I'm very familiar with the story you're citing 2 verses at a time. What's your point? [21:50] no, those verses are in context. [21:50] however, if you want to add cultural bias that's another thing [21:51] steve: as long as the context is CORRECT [21:51] steve: ever heard of hermeneutics? [21:51] po: just trying to help Steve out [21:51] Steve: It is valid to consider context when the standards specify that context is relevant. It is not valid to consider context when the standards do not so specify. [21:51] Steve, we're lagged and I can't scroll back. Please qote again, and slowly. [21:51] Redtango ok, its real simple, what governs the chemicals in your body? [21:51] You know.,Stevve brought up some very provacative verses from the bible, which are inherently violent and sexist, yet you guys find a way to support every one of them. [21:51] profg herpies what? ;) [21:51] lol [21:51] natural law. [21:51] I did not even get out of Genesis.... [21:52] so, is the literal bible the guide for modern sexuality? [21:52] not necessarily [21:52] Action: Alcuin wonders what, apart from the bible itself, is the standard by which something is reckoned to be "sexist" or "violent".... [21:52] Action: ProfG missed where natural law is written... gotta get a copy... [21:52] Redtango, ok so the chemcials in your head that determine what you think are governed bynatural law, NOT logical processes. hence nothing youthink is logical. It is A logical. [21:52] Red: prove those verses are "violent and sexist" [21:52] Steve: the bible is literal in some respects, poetic in others, and consists of lists, statutes, and prayers in other respects. There is no "literal bible". [21:52] Red: and make sure you use your non-absolute standards [21:52] ;-> [21:53] Red how can the chemicals in your head that determine what you think be logical? They aren;t [21:53] I think the human brain has a great capacity for "logic". Computers are purely logical, and humasn built them. [21:53] Alcuin: to some people, it is totally literal [21:53] Red but you only think that because you are determined to. You don't knwo that. [21:53] i dont know that computers are logical? [21:53] Alcuin: for proof, go to #bible [21:53] Red really, you don't know anything. You may have content, but there is no way for youto know if that content is true [21:54] Steve are we some ppl? No [21:54] Steve we are #apologetics, not #bible [21:54] I dont know anything? [21:54] Redtango, nope [21:54] Steve: So when Jesus said, "I am the door" he is to be taken as identifying himself with a literal door? And when he is called a "lamb" we're supposed to und erstand a wooly quadruped by that? I don't know of any, even the most antiintellectual fundy, who would hold to such a thing. [21:54] steve: I am an op on #bible. what is your point? [21:54] Redtango, you only have chemcial reactions in the brain. [21:54] tIf i dont know anything, then how am i able to communicate with you? [21:54] Red you cannot think otherwise than what you do [21:55] Red: by borrowing from theistic presuppositions [21:55] red that IS EXACTLY THE POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [21:55] red that IS EXACTLY THE POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [21:55] po (qmspa@all-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for po[all-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com] [21:55] RedTango: you communicate because the world is as God says it is, rather than as you say it is. [21:55] BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [21:55] Alcuin: indeed, i did not mean to indicate that Fundamentalism embraces all scripture as literalistic. [21:55] acolyte, thats lame. [21:55] i totally disagree. [21:55] Action: Acolyte GIVES REDTANGO A BIG KISS. YOU WON THE THEISTIC JILLION DOLLOAR PRIZE!!! [21:55] and just lost it [21:55] Your ideas are an old, old philosophy that questions one's very existance. [21:55] ProfG: just that many times there seems to be a sort of gag on anyone who chooses to debate a portion of scripture [21:55] Steve: Sorry. Did you have some other sense of "totally literal" in mind? [21:56] Red math is old too, so? [21:56] hehehehe [21:56] red your ideas are old too. justa s old as mine actually [21:56] im not into that sort of philosophy. [21:56] Action: Stevvve yawns. [21:56] RedTango: actually, Acolyte's ideas are quite 20th century. [21:56] Red oh but you are [21:56] that life is "just an illusion" etc... [21:56] Alcuin well in a sense [21:56] steve: I believe that certain topic have been beaten to death of #Bible. So they avoid them. No problem, their choice. [21:56] Red but that is what yor worldview produces [21:56] Red not mine [21:57] ciao, people. [21:57] Alcuin (kingtutor@remote4-line13.cis.yale.edu) left irc: Don't neglect to quit not being illogical! [21:57] ProfG: i understand that.... [21:57] Action: ProfG has to get some exams graded, later all [21:57] God bless [21:57] po (qmspa@all-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [21:57] oh great just leave me [21:57] ProfG (wgreen01@ left irc: Leaving [21:57] re [21:57] no one is under attack here... [21:58] my "wolrdview" has nothing to do with everything being an illusion and that people are programmed robots. [21:58] Red the problem is, your worldview leads to that kind of thinking. [21:58] So, Stevvve, did you ever get around to repeating examples 3 and 4? [21:58] oh, let me get them :) [21:58] Red if you think that everythng is part of nature it sure does [21:58] Acolyte, who are you to tell me i have a problem? [21:58] Baimei (baimei@ joined #apologetics. [21:58] po: please realize these are just a few verses, picked at random [21:58] Red I am just showing you where your worldview logically leads [21:58] po: there are many many verses that deal with sex in the bible [21:58] po: but here are the last 3: [21:58] Acolyte, I don't think you've made your case for that proposition yet. [21:59] Judges 14-16 [21:59] Po why not? [21:59] I'm aware of them. [21:59] JUdges 21:7-14 [21:59] Steve can I ask you a question? [21:59] err (last two i meant) [21:59] you just did Acolyte :) [21:59] Steve can I ask you a question? [21:59] Bon (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [21:59] (geez, no sense of humor) [21:59] sure [22:00] Steve if I read a bk and it describes something, does that mean it says I should do it because it merely tells me what happned? [22:00] Po why not? [22:00] acolyte, we are governed by chemical and enviornmental processes but your limitations lay only with yourself. You are a perfect case, yourself. You are mere chemicals, yet look how hard you fight. Is life an illusion for you? [22:00] hey Bon [22:00] Stevvve, does it mean anything to you that none of the passages you just cited are considered normative by any Bible scholars? Those are just narrations. [22:00] hey aco [22:00] Red in your worldview I don't know if it is. I only think what nature has me think [22:00] If a book describes something, Acolyte, you should also take into account it may be mythical [22:00] total fiction [22:00] Acolyte, because you never made the attempt. Or maybe I missed something in the beginning. [22:01] Steve that is not what I asked. [22:01] Red in your worldview I don't know if it is. I only think what nature has me think [22:01] Steve if I read a bk and it describes something, does that mean it says I should do it because it merely tells me what happned? [22:01] acolyte, you are made the same way i am. [22:01] Stevvve, changing the topic. [22:01] Red no I am not. [22:01] no" You an alien? [22:01] Red your paradigm leads to nihilism, hence it is absurd [22:01] po: though they are mere narrations, they would show the thought patterns of the day [22:01] you are not a human? [22:01] Judith (Sandra@dial091.skypoint.net) left #apologetics. [22:01] How are you not like me? [22:01] red I am nnot and you ar enot what you think we are [22:02] Bon (simpsonb@UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics. [22:02] Steve r u going to answer what I asked or no? [22:02] Ac: i dont understand what youre asking? [22:02] How are younot like me? Are you from another planet, or are you a machine? [22:02] anselm (nobyte@slip191.UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics. [22:02] ac: if a book is describing something, it is not commanding it [22:02] Steve Do you read the newspaper? [22:02] ac: if i read "and the sky was blue" i'm not going to do anything [22:02] ac: yes [22:03] You presented examples of what you claim to be distorted sexual morals taught by the Bible. None of your examples are of behavior which is condoned by ANY normative teaching in the Bible. [22:03] So far, you have failed to even begin to make a case for what you claim. [22:03] Steve ok, the newspapaer describes many events, yes? Now, does the newspaper prescribe those events by merely informing you of them? [22:03] Red scroll up [22:03] Red I am not and you are not what you think we are [22:03] Stevvve, if I read in the newspaper that a man stabbed his wife 3 times, does that mean that American culture condones stabbing wives? [22:03] Ah, i see your point [22:03] you tell me... [22:03] Stevve, it appears that Acolyte has an obessive paranoia with not being in control, and it is therapy for him to keep telling people their worldviews and ideas about science are wrong. [22:04] What does that say about American culture? [22:04] po if so I am waiting for the "Christian Stabs Atheist" story. ;0 jk folks [22:04] Red: i know :) [22:04] Steve it says it is corrupt which is the WHOLE point of the bk of Judges [22:04] Acolyte, so if we arent what i think we are, then you tell me what you think we are. [22:04] go 'head. [22:04] Red IC ignore my argument, just attack me personally [22:04] Red Body and Soul [22:04] It says that at least one man in the culture is excessively violent towards his wife. [22:04] Good point, Acol [22:05] It does not say anything within it about doing what was corrupt [22:05] the only part where judges says something of the sort is the last verse [22:05] and it doesnt necessarily say "corrupt" [22:05] Nor does it say anything about doing what is holy. [22:05] it says, they saw as they saw fit... [22:05] well.... [22:05] Steve sure does, at the end of almost every narrative is the phrase "And everyman did what they saw was right intheir own eys and the land was fileld with evil." [22:05] look again... [22:05] It just recounts the events. [22:05] hawk- (bhawk@mh153a.resmeier.andrews.edu) joined #apologetics. [22:05] Steve YOU look again [22:06] look at ch. 21 [22:06] Steve check the end of the narratives [22:06] seems like God didnt mind [22:06] steve God did mind,thatis the point [22:07] Actually, Stevvve, if you take the whole history in view, it DOES call it evil. Moses, back in Deut 30 or so, predicted that they would ignore the Law and turn aside to the lusts of their own hearts, and Judges recounts how they did s o. [22:07] Acolyte, i dont come on here insulting or ignoring people. [22:07] Redtango you just did [22:07] how? [22:07] man, you are sensitive. [22:07] Red oh I am a control freak? what is that? a compliment? [22:07] If you go on to the prophets, they recount God's judgement against the nation of Israel for ignoring His laws. So, you are not correct -- in context, Judges is pretty clearly condemned. [22:08] did i use the word freak? I dont think so. [22:08] so tell me... [22:08] i said you were afraid of losing control, and i stand by that statement. [22:08] Red I have a control "problem". Is that a compliment? [22:08] Red control of what? [22:08] Red like I am such a hard Op [22:08] (jumping to what most protestants consider most authoratative and holy) [22:08] control of yourself [22:08] The New Testament.... [22:08] red this is the only channle I have ops on undernet, [22:08] The words of Christ [22:09] im not talking about controlling an IRC channel. [22:09] Steve I am not Protestant Nor Roman Catholic BTW [22:09] Abandoning the OT argument? [22:09] po touchie [22:09] No, I am not po [22:09] red how am I not in control of myself? [22:09] Do you want me to stay here? I will....lets talk about the prophets [22:09] i didnt say you werent in control of yourself, i said you fear losing that control. [22:09] I'm Protestant, but not a good Evangelical... [22:09] Go on, Stevvve... [22:09] wherever. [22:10] Red how do You know that? [22:10] ? [22:10] Ok, just briefly then.... [22:10] By your worldview. [22:10] What did Jesus mean when he said the only reason two people could divorce was in the case of marital unfaithfulness [22:10] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca14-06.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [22:10] red and how does that tell ya? [22:11] Aco...whats up? [22:11] Mode change '+o Cassidy_ ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [22:11] nada [22:11] butthole (ksain@tlh4.supernet.net) joined #apologetics. [22:11] Hey red. [22:11] acolyte, i am suprised you value my opinion, since, according to you, it is only an illusion. [22:11] Red I value it because the world is not what you think it is [22:11] butthole....yet another Irc user with a life!!! :-) [22:11] Butthole change the nick [22:12] what are you guys "chatting" about [22:12] Sex :) [22:12] Butthole change the nick Second Warning [22:12] Aaaah, I see [22:12] Acolyte, your little discussion w/ RedTango is going nowhere... it might be wise to let it go. [22:12] Butthole change the nick (THIRD WARNING) [22:12] Seems pretty clear to me -- although I don't think He was in a position to promulgate a complete statement under the circumstances... [22:12] Well, sorta... [22:12] oh, okay, so if we were really living in a world where we are animals and relied on instinct and intellect and we lived and died as I feel we really do, then my opinion would be valueless? [22:12] po no I am done. Imade the point. She's a Nihlist. [22:13] butthole (ksain@tlh4.supernet.net) left #apologetics. [22:13] Red yes [22:13] Oh, RedTango is a SHE. I did not realize. Not that it makes much diff... [22:13] Red intellect is merely impulse tho [22:13] And valueless because life would be, under those circumstances, short, temporary and brutal. [22:13] red no [22:13] It should...afterall, arent "women supposed to keep silent"... [22:13] heheheh [22:13] sorry [22:13] gypsy (ksain@tlh4.supernet.net) joined #apologetics. [22:13] red meaningless ebcauee it is merely functions of chemcials. Chemcials are not ABOUT something [22:14] butthole has changed the nick [22:14] gypsy thanks [22:14] no problem [22:14] Stevvve, in the church, yes, that's what Paul said. [22:14] You are chemical. [22:14] hey red....do you have a picture of yourself on any web databases? I looked thru a few and didn't find one. I've GOT to see what you look like...... [22:14] ANd your meaning is up to you, and you only. [22:14] Milhous (hlm3mr@ joined #apologetics. [22:14] yep....and you agree, po? [22:14] for todays' world, or just for Pauls? [22:14] A-Zone (rkaimer@dialin-30.eznet.net) joined #apologetics. [22:14] I'm curious... why is the nickname thing such a big deal anyway??? [22:14] red in my worldview yes, part of me is, inyour worldview, allof you is/ ACtually there is no "you" only a bio-chemical machine [22:14] cassidy, no, i dont..what is a web database? [22:15] A-Zone (rkaimer@dialin-30.eznet.net) left #apologetics. [22:15] gypsy crude [22:15] what?? seriously... [22:15] my brain and body is who i am, as it is who you are. [22:15] gypsy with a Nick like Acoyte, do ou think I am joking? [22:15] Not in the home, not in the street, not in Sunday school -- in the church. [22:15] gypsy! since when did you begin championing users that get their kicks coming into Christian channels with "potty-mouth" nicks??? :-) [22:15] Red again, only if I assume your paradigm [22:16] po: so that means no singing or just no preaching? [22:16] I agree. Not everyone in my church does ( in spite of the fact that they INSIST, LOUDLY AND OFTEN that they believe every word...) [22:16] Loathian (Daedalus@68.net4.nauticom.net) joined #apologetics. [22:16] Mode change '+o Loathian ' by W!cservice@undernet.org [22:16] hey icarus [22:16] ps....I thought Sunday School WAS in the church... [22:16] Red...you can upload a pic and desplay it on an "irc-user" database. [22:16] Actually, in context it means no preaching. Singing is not in the context. [22:16] Look, man, I'm knew at this. I didn't know it was such a big deal. Really. [22:16] Action: Milhous . o O ( hypocrisy ) [22:16] Action: Stevvve nods... [22:16] when the brain dies, all personality and memory dies. Case in point..frontal lobodomies. You have one of those done, and your personality changes completely and permanently. Prozac is another example. [22:17] gyspy no prob, its changed, but becareful the bots on other channels will auto-ban youfor it [22:17] gypsy...I think I like you. That is all. (g) [22:17] Cassidy, where is this database located? [22:17] I'm just an honest person. what can I say... [22:17] red, in naturalism there is no personality, just behavior description [22:17] Isn't it interesting that more men support the idea of women being silent in the churches more than women? [22:17] Personality, i.e. "soul" can be altered with chemical imbalances or removal of brain parts. [22:17] It happens that I've known lots of Pentecostals, who have lots of female preachers, some of them pretty good. [22:17] what of prozac? [22:17] indeed.... [22:17] gypsy...virtue indeed.... [22:17] Steve ad homenin fallacy [22:18] impressive latin Acolyte... [22:18] prozac? where?! give it to Acolyte, QUICK!!! [22:18] Stevve, that is because men craft religions to promote their priorities, and males tend to be dominating by nature, so naturally their religion is going to follow suit. [22:18] how does soul=personality? and how are you defining personality? [22:18] I think it's time for women to control the church [22:18] Steve the reason women are not priests is theological, not sexual, Example int he NT period Pagan religions were female based, not male based [22:18] I think God is working in that direction. [22:18] I guess I didn't know what I was "getting into" when I jumped into this chat room. Not that I want to get out of it or anything. I just wasn't expecting a discussion about religion. [22:19] You wanna know why males are dominating? Evolution. [22:19] Red adn women don't dot he same? [22:19] milhouse that depends if one holds to naturalism or not [22:19] gypsy...what were you expecting? [22:19] acolyte, male and female domination are not the same. They operate in different ways. [22:19] I think there would also be more peace on earth... [22:19] red still domination [22:19] if we look in the animal kingdom...it is the males who do battle... [22:19] but the dynamics are not the same. [22:19] over territory [22:20] red why is male domination not acceptable since it is perfectly natural in your paradigm? [22:20] I have noooo idea, Cassidy. But, apologetics doesn't exactly exude religion. [22:20] Red ok not the same deynamics, but still domination [22:20] po (qmspa@all-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for po[all-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com] [22:20] Actually, it seems male domination is quite accepted. [22:20] stevvvve...you think its time, huh? Better check with God first... [22:20] It's the evolution of sexual reproduction. [22:20] since manline(sideline) denominations have ordained women they have slipped into irrelavance and cultural syncretism. [22:20] God seems to be the one giving the signal, Cassidy.... [22:20] Red ok so why are you complaining? [22:20] The male reproductive patter is to create jillions of sperm and spread it everywhere. [22:20] Because i didnt say i was one of those who accept it. [22:20] duh. [22:20] gypsy...I've never heard it in any other context. You're not a Christian I take it.... [22:21] Loathian cultural irrelevance and sycretism=ephemisum for Paganism [22:21] So what is personality? Does prozac alter this or merely restore it? [22:21] So males need to be dominating to ensure proper receptacles... [22:21] Red why not accept what is natural tho? [22:21] Stevvve...really? how so? He didn't give it to me... [22:21] Well, I was raised Catholic, but I am no longer practicing. But, enough about me... [22:21] afr (arogers@p26.pm2.theriver.com) joined #apologetics. [22:21] Cassidy, listen with your heart....are you a man, Cassidy? [22:21] I dont think christiantiy is a female friendly religion. I think thats why many many women turn to alternative sorts of religion. [22:21] Women only have a limited number of eggs, and they need as many as possible to hatch. [22:21] short and sweet... [22:22] So they need a steady supply of sperm and food. [22:22] So many women? [22:22] Not [22:22] Gypsy...well. What can we do for you? [22:22] po (qmspa@all-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [22:22] Acolyte, cause, although you think it is all part of my worldview, people and society can change. We are not slaves to illusions or chemicals. [22:22] Judith (Sandra@dial091.skypoint.net) joined #apologetics. [22:22] daggone, keep getting split. [22:22] i think christianity can be a female friendly faith...with some liberation ;) [22:22] holy cats [22:22] I'm not sure. So, I guess I'll see you later. [22:22] a minority of wiccan waccos [22:22] Stev...yes. My heart doesn't have ears. [22:22] redtango, so there is something other than nature thatdetermiens your actions? [22:22] bye gypsy. [22:22] gypsy (ksain@tlh4.supernet.net) left #apologetics. [22:23] "liberation" nice neo-marxist egalitarian term [22:23] no [22:23] Cassidy: indeed...well all i can tell you is that you're a man, not a woman. And that the fabric of Christianity is not doctrine but love. [22:23] ever here of the reimagining conference? [22:23] buit nature isnt as limited as you like to think it is. [22:23] loathiah yes. [22:23] This was a result of female ordination [22:23] zip (wireless@pm01-38.cdc.net) joined #apologetics. [22:23] steve...however, if my "heart" IS in fact capable of listening...then I figure III' [22:23] Hey all you guys. Aren't you the 'atheists' that didn't want nothing to eo with Christianity? [22:23] Red if nature is not governed by natural law, PLEASE tellme, what else is there? [22:23] Acolyte...interesting you think that...I guess Paul was a Neo-Marxist too saying that we are free in Christ [22:23] ...II've got as much chance as any of hearing this revelation. [22:23] there isnt anything else, for the last time. [22:24] Paul was a Marxist before it became fashionable. [22:24] Stevee no freedom from since, not freedom from allaged socio-ecominic repression. [22:24] Actually I am a born again Christian, and a faithful member and sunday school teacher in a Southern Baptist church...been a christian for 12 years [22:24] since=sin [22:24] paul was the first lutheran..you guys have it all wrong ;) [22:24] stevvve I always KNEW the SBC was going liberal [22:24] A-Zone (rkaimer@dialin-30.eznet.net) joined #apologetics. [22:24] Jith is that why he went to Britan? [22:24] Acolyte....im sorry...i thought jesus helped the poor and challenged the relgious establishment to be more social-economic friendly [22:25] Cassidy, i think i missed your answer, but where did you say these datatbase photos can be found? [22:25] well, my church is very fundamental...going that way too [22:25] I do not think women's ordination is such a problem. I am inclined instead to believe that the women who seek ordination are off balance. [22:25] Stevee sure he did, he helped the poor when the LAw said they needed and rpescribed help [22:25] doh! [22:25] loath, why? [22:25] so he didnt love them [22:25] who are you to say whom God can call to the office of pastor? [22:25] Loathian well being a Sacerdotalist I have a problem with it [22:25] he just helped them when the law said they needed help [22:25] stevee sure he did [22:25] stevvve...so Im a man. Granted. II know of no penile-brain connection that limits my interpretation if scripture...OR the "hearing" of broadcasts from heaven. Ad-hominum circumstantial. [22:25] AZONE!!!!!! [22:25] afr (arogers@p26.pm2.theriver.com) left #apologetics. [22:25] Hey, zip. [22:25] cassidy, exactly [22:26] why, what? [22:26] Action: zip notices that Milhous has arrived [22:26] you don't need a penis to preach in the pulpit [22:26] Cassiy you mean having a penis does not make my arguement wrong? OH WHAT JOY!!! [22:26] Cassidy: the point is if you were born a woman, you prob. wouldnt like being told to be quiet in the pulpit and be in submission to men [22:26] po (qmspa@all-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for po[all-pa1-22.ix.netcom.com] [22:26] hehe [22:26] judith true in certain circumstacnes [22:26] Hey man, if yer penis is cut off you can't be in congegation of God... [22:26] Steve actually I knw many woem who tell me the opposite [22:26] stevve, anatomy is irrelvant to that. [22:27] "many?" [22:27] stevve yeah most women in my church [22:27] just as there were "many" blacks who said that the segregation system was fine [22:27] and the command is to be silent in the church period. if you have a question, ask your husband or father when you get home [22:27] stevvve...what in the WORLD has any of this got to do with what YOU or I like???? Tell me! Christ gave revelation. We accept it. THATS Christianity!! [22:27] stevve they left liberal churches because of it [22:27] of course they'll say that...they're afraid [22:27] Judith there is a context to all of that [22:27] stevve, WHO are you or anyone else to say whom GOD can call to wahtever he wants? [22:27] stevvve so now every woeman that disagrees is afraid [22:28] Women (feminists) and homosexuals and not a few liberals have utterly destroyed the old mainline churches. If they had their way, all the mainlines would be reduced to the Metropolitan Community Church. As it is, they are not fa r from it no [22:28] now [22:28] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp28.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [22:28] because GOD is the one who calls a person to be a pastor...and no one should stand in the way of his will [22:28] Cassidy_ can you IMAGINE Michelle MArr ebing Told she is "AFAIRD"????!!! [22:28] afraid of what? [22:28] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( Acolyte )))))))))) [22:28] no, i am not saying that... [22:28] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( Cassidy_ )))))))))) [22:28] Loathian, why do you say women who seek ordiantion are "off balance?" [22:28] Action: NedFlndrs (((((((((( Loathian )))))))))) [22:28] not every woman is afraid.... [22:28] but many are... [22:28] i'd say the men are the ones who are afraid..they're the ones who want to keep others silent [22:28] These churches have little creibility in the broader Christian culture, and are merely operating on borrowed time and credit. [22:28] Flanders! Uh-oh... [22:28] Stevvve...thats what the ears of MY heart say...I, however, have the stronger argument, because MY hearts ears are backed by Holy writ. [22:28] and no one should be kept silent in the church [22:28] NED! [22:28] and they have no reason to be afraid [22:28] Judith, on that, i agree!! [22:29] Judsith he said that women in my church who do not hold to Women's ordination and oppose it are "Afraid" hence their views [22:29] true, judith..... [22:29] very true ;) [22:29] hehehehee [22:29] acolyte, he is incorrect [22:29] :o [22:29] Hey Bart! get your old man! Flanders is here... [22:29] The Mad man is here [22:29] Judith The Church selects who is to be a minister. Its pretty clear in ACts [22:29] Mode change '+o NedFlndrs ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [22:29] The women who seek it are off balance. I did not say they are off balance for seeking it. [22:29] hey ned [22:29] men are afraid! What do women have to lose by asserting themselves? [22:29] Judith I kow [22:29] Why are they off balance?? [22:29] Cassidy_ can you IMAGINE Michelle MArr ebing Told she is "AFAIRD"????!!! [22:29] whats up acolyte? [22:29] acolyte, but God and the holy spirit are the one who grant the gift of preaching [22:29] A-Zone (rkaimer@dialin-30.eznet.net) left #apologetics. [22:30] Hey Its ZIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! [22:30] Zip??....whats up?? [22:30] Judith ok, so? Balaam's Ass preached, didn't make him a pastor for it either [22:30] The women who seek ordination 9 out of ten times tend to be freaks, lesbians, leftists, and nut cases. Just go to a PCUSA general assembly [22:30] Judith bad example I admit [22:30] oh...comparing a woman to a donkey....... [22:30] aco, no, it didn't [22:30] Hello redtango [22:30] Loathian, what about the 1 out of 10? The one you didnt count? Is she crazy, too? [22:30] Loathian...that didnt seem to protray a loving attitude [22:30] There is more to ordination thjan preaching [22:30] not much ... watching clockwork orange.. [22:31] Judith the Theodosis of the CHurch led by the Spirit has been very clear, no wome in the priesthood [22:31] Zip....Kool Movie...LOL [22:31] Stevve, Loathian is threatened, thats all. [22:31] Loathian yes, the Sacraments [22:31] doesn't say that any church 9or any person has a say in who gets what gift [22:31] Loving attitude? How do you gage that? I stated a fact. I have been to a number of pcusa general assemblies [22:31] RedTango!silver@ip033.lax.primenet.com kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: no more Ad Homenin Attacks [22:31] The Celtic church seemed to prefer women over men as the leaders of the church [22:31] RED.....so whats your paradigm? [22:31] RedTango (silver@ip033.lax.primenet.com) joined #apologetics. [22:31] :) [22:31] RED.....so whats your paradigm? [22:31] Red...Ooooh sister. Context, my dear... context. I'd love a Female President! I'm ready for it. Or a CEO...or what ever. But here we're talking about their participation in a religion that forbids them to Pastor...Not teach or a ct as a deacon or any other duty...just pastor. If we change that, we've changed the religion. [22:31] Why was i kicked? [22:31] Stevve sure, at one time [22:32] Red......an adHominem [22:32] Argh, bible-@@@ers. [22:32] and the church and men cannot say to women "we have no need for you. remain silent" [22:32] Mil??? [22:32] Milhous.....whats up?? [22:32] I watched a women hold up a microphone while preaching and ask the congregation, "what does a woman need something shaped like this for?" [22:32] Judith we don't, we have a female non-sacerdotal deaconate [22:33] Cassidy, that is only one of many resons why i cant accept christianity..if you cant rise to your fullest capacity because the religion holds you back, well, then, it isnt for me. [22:33] Reade (holtsland@ joined #Apologetics. [22:33] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp28.snni.com) left #apologetics. [22:33] Loathiha tohave kids [22:33] If that does not qualify for all the above descriptives, I do not know what does. [22:33] red, the people try to hold you back. not God. [22:33] Loathian, well, its like this, the pserm comes form the man and then.... [22:33] This was not the exception, this was the rule. [22:33] aco? women are meant to be baby factories [22:33] hello all. [22:33] we can't help it everyone wasn't born with the same plumbing as us! [22:33] Loathian, have your ead "She WHo IS" by Elizebeth Johnson? [22:34] Judith dito [22:34] Judith, so God wouldnt mind women becoming ordainied? [22:34] Judith have youread Lewis' space trilogy? [22:34] red, no. i'm sure he wouldn't [22:34] no aco, i have not [22:34] Indeed Judith. I'm happy about that. [22:34] Judith based on what? [22:34] unfortunately [22:34] Judith I think you should [22:34] Judith expecially the second Volume, PErelandra [22:34] I'm all for ordaination of women. [22:34] aco, based on the fact that *I* have been called to that office personally. [22:34] remember, I went to a liberal seminary [22:34] Judith how do you know that? [22:34] I had to read, fiorenza, daily, et al [22:35] aco because i know. [22:35] Loathian yeah, I have read some of her stuff, really weak [22:35] Judith how do you know? [22:35] aco, i don't have to justify my call to you or anyone else. [22:35] Red...we're not talking about a social club where we vote on new ammendments to it's rules...This is a religion Based on revelation from God! Listen. Its not my duty to run and cower and apologize for it....it simply is...no mat ter WHAT modern pop-trends think of it. I wont pad ir for contempory culture...Im sorry!! [22:35] Judith how am I to differentiat between you and the Pentacostal who thinks God told them? and Joseph Smith? and the JW's? [22:35] Judith sure do [22:35] I used to have no problem with women's ordination until I saw the fall out. 3 GA's were enough for me to go PCA [22:35] Cassidy, but it is so TYPICAL to exclude women in one form or another.. [22:35] Milhous (hlm3mr@ left irc: Ping timeout for Milhous[] [22:36] judith if youare going to try ti change how the Spirit has led the CHurch for 2,000 yrs, you but youa re going to have to justify it [22:36] aco, because i have gone through the same process that those called into service in the scriptures have gone through [22:36] (most of the way) [22:36] aco, i'm not changing it. [22:36] loathian 3 ga's???? [22:36] I'm all for it because ordination has no basis in scripture. [22:36] Judith sure are [22:36] no aco...i'mn ot. [22:36] General Assemblies [22:36] judith, name me 3 Fathers OR MOthers of the early Church who taught it? [22:36] MacBinary (ircle@dial196159.wbm.ca) joined #apologetics. [22:36] hey mac [22:36] Hello Mac [22:36] Red...so? fine. Im/it's typical. Ok. What am I supposed to feel about that? How do you intend me to react? [22:37] aco, i don't have to [22:37] hi [22:37] hey mac. [22:37] Judith neither do I have to justify why I EXCLUDE Women [22:37] Everything about christianity and its attitudes towards women, gays, etc is so typical of men. There is nothing that astounding or amazing about it. It still includes the same old rhetoric and restrictions because of prejudices based on sex. [22:37] but there is junia, priscilla... [22:37] Judith, when youchange the priesthood, you cahnge CHristology [22:37] aco, i don't care who YOU exclude. God's not the one doing the excluding [22:37] Judith Deaconesses [22:37] Judith God works throughteh CHurch [22:37] christology has not changed [22:38] Indeed, Judith. [22:38] Judith having CHRITA on a Crucifix is not changing CHRISTOLOGY??! [22:38] the church is made up of sinful people. God is not. [22:38] who's putting that there? [22:38] judith having a female Christ is not changing Christology? EXCUSE YOU? [22:38] Now hang on nobody is saying Christ wasn't a man. [22:38] female christ? who's doing that? [22:38] Judiththe same ppl advocating women;s ordination [22:38] i'm certainly not [22:38] Judith they DID IT IN MY CHURCH [22:38] The problem with all ordination controversies is that the excluded bring a rights language into the debate where clearly none belongs. The church is not founded on social contract or the bill of rights, but when you talk to a ho mosexual, [22:38] aco, not all of them [22:38] that's a HUGE generalization [22:39] feminist, or other fringe extreme, this is what you are presented with, "it is my right." [22:39] Judith NOW THey have said that it is HERESY to oppose women's ordination inthe CHurch I was rasied in [22:39] aco, well they were wrong to do that. but not all of those in favor of female ordination believe that way [22:39] Judith, now I am a heretic according to the mainline episcopal church [22:39] aco, you are welcome to your opinions [22:39] Feminists and homosexuals arent necessarily liberals. [22:39] They're people. [22:39] bye all [22:39] Judith well the ppl I have read DO [22:39] bye Red :) [22:39] Judith Elizebeth Johnson DOES [22:39] I am a man and I see it as injustice. Just as the prophets call us to decry injustice so do I. [22:39] Judith, stand firm! [22:39] aco, well the people i have read DON'T [22:39] Judith so do many others [22:39] and the people i have MET don't [22:39] and I don't. [22:39] Same here, you would get defrocked for opposing woman's ordination. In ten years it will be gay ordination. [22:39] Judith such as? [22:40] Red...so you say. Im sorry the institutions of the world aren't as *enlightened* as you. You know what? I dont care. Acolyte can attest to the way I treat women. I believe it is without discrimination. Yet, I have no problem wit h Christianity. I think it's liberating. What YOU want has LITTLE to do with equality. [22:40] RedTango (silver@ip033.lax.primenet.com) left #apologetics. [22:40] Lo...it already is. [22:40] laothian there is a heresy trial right now for that in ECUSA, it will decide the fate of ECUSA I think [22:40] i don't remember the names offhand. [22:40] judith HOW convienient [22:40] so its the old slippery slope thing - eh - damn them for letting the niggers in :) [22:40] aco, i'm not the literary sponge you are. sorry [22:40] Judith name me ONE mainline feminist theologian who agrees with you? [22:40] Loathian In what way are women and homosexuals connected? [22:40] it has nothing to do with feminist theology [22:40] I agree. I do not think the ECUSA has a spine [22:40] nothing at all [22:40] judith, is that why at these feminist meetings they have lectures by Starhawk, A WITCH? [22:41] acolyte, you're generalizing [22:41] Loathian well they got the heresy trial started [22:41] They are inextricably bound at the level of advocacy groups [22:41] judith AM I? [22:41] and i'm NOT a feminist. [22:41] and i don't follow feminist theology [22:41] yes aco you are. [22:41] Judith, whatmakes you NOT a feminist? [22:41] in the PCUSA, the feminists, woman's groups, homosexuals, et cetera are all interconnected politically. [22:41] I'll have to admit, I'm somewhat of a feminist, although I am a male... [22:41] well i wouldn't attend anything lead by starhawk, and i don't believe most of the tenets they follow. [22:41] Judith I was raised in ECUSA I know the agenda and the theology quite well [22:41] judith such as? [22:42] brb [22:42] aco, well ECUSA is not the entire christian church and obviously is not representative of all of those in favor of female ordination [22:42] what is PCUSA and ECUSA? [22:42] Oops! This is a denominational dispute. [22:42] I dunno :) I think its the Presbyterians and the Episcopalians [22:42] JohnM (.epix.net@lsptppp34.epix.net) joined #apologetics. [22:42] i don't believe the sophia movement, i don't believe God is female, i don't advocate the "inclusive language" bible (i do, however, advocate the accurate translation of it) [22:43] The ECUSA is well within the pac of mainliners and all off these are in the same sinking morass [22:43] Me too, Judith. [22:43] Judith I beg to differ [22:43] the ELCA has been ordaining women for over 25 years without problem [22:43] does God have a sex? [22:43] aco? you beg to differ on MY opinions? [22:43] I'm not sure whether God has a sex [22:43] Action: Stevvve laugs [22:43] Judith is that why Elca is movinng toward gay ordination too? [22:43] The elca is having the same problems [22:43] then by all means, tell me what i think then [22:43] God is not human so obviously not. [22:43] aco, it's FAR from that. [22:44] threee years ago they duked it out over their human sexuality report [22:44] Milhous (hlm3mr@ joined #apologetics. [22:44] ELCA, PCUSA, UMC, and EUCSA, same probs [22:44] Apart from Jesus who is a man. [22:44] however, i wouldn't have a problem with a non-practicing homosexual being ordained. [22:44] judith not according to many I know in ELCA heirarchy [22:44] heck, they probably are [22:44] acolyte, right. it's FAR from it. [22:44] MrBIG (nobody@dal30-14.ppp.iadfw.net) joined #apologetics. [22:44] Judith neither would I but that is not what they are arguing [22:44] Jesus called Him, "Father" [22:44] according to everyone i know in the ELCA congregation [22:45] judith just wait, you'll see [22:45] loath, that's cuz it was a first draft that someone leaked tothe press before they released it to the congregations [22:45] Buh. [22:45] did he call Him father because God has a penis or because it made sense to the patriarchal society he was in (with illustrations of inheritance and reward) [22:45] aco, i'm not going to hold my breath [22:45] Whats the topic? [22:45] Judith do you advocate inclusive langauge for liturgy? [22:45] stevve, the latter [22:45] The fact that the ELCA hierarchy was able to push the Human Sexuality Report is proof of their immense problem [22:45] Action: Stevvve smiles. [22:45] I never asked Him [22:45] Laothiah yup, same with PECUSA [22:45] Loathian and C RC [22:45] MrBig An acrimonious denominational argument. [22:46] Hello? [22:46] In my church, the HSR is not even an issue [22:46] what wsa the human sexuality report? [22:46] Loathian HSR? [22:46] Hello MrBig. [22:46] There's a topic here?? Oh. [22:46] acolyte, define inclusive language? [22:46] loath, it's been tabled indefinitely now. [22:46] and it was NOT a final draft..it was a FIRST draft [22:46] Judith adressing God in feminine terms [22:46] Judith the fact that it was ANY draft shows that there is a problem [22:46] human sexuality report [22:46] aco, for a change once in a while, why not? the bible does [22:47] Loathian what are you in? [22:47] I personally refer to the Holy Spirit in feminine terms frequently. [22:47] Judith oh it does? In prayer and Liturgy? Where? [22:47] cool [22:47] aco, there is nothing wrong with the chuch making an official statment regarding any host of issues [22:47] read, so does the bible [22:47] PCA [22:47] Judith sure is, when it is heretical [22:47] aco isaiah, psalms [22:47] it's stronger in the hebrew. [22:47] no aco... [22:47] All of this seems too complicating. [22:47] elohim..there's a feminine term.. [22:47] Judith when does the Prophets pray to God using Mother? [22:47] erl...el shaddai [22:47] God of the Breasts [22:47] Judith yeah Goddess [22:47] no aco. [22:48] its allpiled to pagan dieties [22:48] i'm not advocating that at all [22:48] judith name me the text [22:48] when in the liturgy? In prayer? [22:48] of el shaddai? [22:48] J, the fact that the ELCA even got that far is a sign of serious trouble. [22:48] one text please [22:48] uh...find it yourself in the OT [22:48] oh now it is find it myself [22:48] I need to find YOUR verses for youto support YOUR argument? [22:48] how nice [22:49] i think judith's point is that el shaddai is too extensive [22:49] aco, el shaddai shouldn't be hard to find [22:49] Ten years gay ordination, 30 pedophilia in the form of child advocacy,"who are we to limit a childs sexual expression." My prediction. [22:49] its pratcially all over the place [22:49] anselm (nobyte@slip191.UCS.ORST.EDU) joined #apologetics. [22:49] MrBIG (nobody@dal30-14.ppp.iadfw.net) left irc: Read error to MrBIG[dal30-14.ppp.iadfw.net]: Connection reset by peer [22:49] helloooo [22:49] JohnM (.epix.net@lsptppp34.epix.net) left #apologetics. [22:49] hi anselm [22:49] judith just name me the Litrugical text or text in prayer where God is entreated in feminine terms [22:49] The slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Please stick to reality, Loathian. [22:50] Loathian it is coming next [22:50] loathian in WA there were a number of those PACS supporting Clinton in the 92 election [22:50] ???? [22:50] Judith analogous, not a litrugy NOR prayer [22:51] So the Republicans are responsible for ushering in the Kingdom of God? [22:51] i think not.... [22:51] judith, I asked for PRAYER or LITURGIAL text, that is not one of them [22:51] but i wont start... [22:51] The slippery slope is not a fallacy. It depends on the context. If there is empirical evidence to support the slide, it is not a fallacy. Read a text on philosophy of logic. [22:51] hehehhe [22:51] stevee no the Kingdom is here already [22:51] doesn't matter [22:51] Judith oh, now it doesn't matter [22:51] and from what i understand from those who understand hebrew, it's more common in the original languages than in the english [22:52] no, i didn't say that. [22:52] judith Look if youare going t change the way I address God, you bet you *&%# it matters [22:52] loath: if there is empirical evidenence to go from setp one to two to three etc - then it is no longer a slippery slope [22:52] Judith ther is NOT one TEXT for it [22:52] aco, you are welcome to address God however you want [22:52] i'm not going to stop you. [22:52] Action: Stevvve grins. [22:52] Judith, uh well it was ppl like you who forced me out of ECUSA and countless others [22:52] Aurus (osiris@dial43.probe.net) joined #apologetics. [22:52] hi aurus [22:52] Greetings. [22:52] Action: anselm applauds Judith's remarks [22:52] and since God IS genderless, what is wrong with addressing God in female terms once in a while to be well rounded and deter limitations? [22:53] Judith I was PERSONALLY told that because I did not support Homo ordination nor women's ordinationt hat Iw ould never be ordained [22:53] aco, i am not a member of ECUSA and never will be. *I* am not responsible for your leaving [22:53] hi aurus [22:53] Rev_Ely (clayton@XMAN.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU) joined #apologetics. [22:53] Judith your ideaology is tho [22:53] and why is Jesus always portrayed as a a white man [22:53] Yes! [22:53] aco, well *I* didn't tell you that and never would [22:53] God is neuter [22:53] well well well [22:53] True...i dont think you can blame Judith for your past, Aco [22:53] Oh, I think I may have stepped into something interesting. [22:53] MrBIG (nobody@dal30-14.ppp.iadfw.net) joined #apologetics. [22:53] aco, no, your generalizatinos of my ideology states that [22:53] Aurus yes my dog makes it allthe time [22:53] Mac: Dont you know that everyone born in bethlehem was white? [22:53] Mac, if you can show evidence from 1 to 2 you can justly infer 3, 4, 5 within the context of an inductive framework [22:53] judith I beg to differ [22:53] Reade (holtsland@ left irc: Ping timeout for Reade[] [22:53] And it is still slippery slope [22:53] Action: Rev_Ely offers the right fist of fellowship to acolyte [22:54] aco, you are generalizing about what I think, feel, and believe. [22:54] rev: well of course :) [22:54] Lothian what is your #1 and #2? [22:54] and you are more incorrect than correct [22:54] Mode change '+b *!*clayton@*WHARTON.UPENN.EDU ' by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu [22:54] you have decided my stances on all issues because of my opinion regarding one or two [22:54] afr (arogers@p26.pm2.theriver.com) joined #apologetics. [22:54] loathian: if you can show the connections then you are not committing a fallacy [22:54] and that is unfair and your assumptions are incorrect [22:54] Rev_Ely!clayton@XMAN.WHARTON.UPENN.EDU kicked by ApoloBot!bibleman@xlab1.fiu.edu: be nice [22:54] afr (arogers@p26.pm2.theriver.com) left #apologetics. [22:54] Judith no I am talking about the ideaology [22:55] Anyone here use Microsoft Word? [22:55] Judith, your ideaology destroyed my CHurch [22:55] aco, not mine. [22:55] not if I can help it :) [22:55] you're talking about what you assume to be my ideaology [22:55] aurus: yes [22:55] What church, Aco? [22:55] Bai.. I have a question. [22:55] judith, God is generless but Jesus gives us the prime example of how to address God [22:55] and you are stereotyping me [22:55] ordination of divorced (1), of women (2) and homosexuals (3) probably pedophiles(4) [22:55] right [22:55] and it is very unfair [22:55] judith nope [22:55] actually I use an older version [22:55] aco you are. [22:55] and you can deny it all you want. [22:55] judith I am not talking about you personally [22:56] judith I said your ideaology [22:56] aco, you sure are [22:56] Loathian, interesting...how did you decide those precise sexual forms correlated to points one, two and three? [22:56] Loath: but you have to show why the oridnation of women would ential the ordination of gays - etc [22:56] Mac it does. prettyw ell established fact [22:56] Bai, my Word 6 is having some sort of problem with my fonts.. it seems that somewhere down my list it forgets where it is at and actually gives me a font that I do not want when I choose another.. i.e., I choose TNR and get Stencil .. [22:56] Acolyte] Judith, uh well it was ppl like you who forced me out of ECUSA and countless others [22:56] mac same arguments for one [22:56] aco: ah your assertion makes it so [22:57] Judith yeah ppl like you, ppl who hold that idealogy [22:57] what is the argument [22:57] Anselm ECUSA [22:57] macbinary cultural relativism for one [22:57] aco, what ideology? [22:57] MrBIG (nobody@dal30-14.ppp.iadfw.net) left #apologetics. [22:57] Judith egalitarianism in the ministry [22:57] i have disagreed with you on most points of that ideaology yet you still hold me to it [22:57] aurus: is this using a template [22:57] judith basic assumption [22:57] I think I already made that point. If you belong to one of these denoms, and have been to their GA's GC's et cetera, you will at once realize that all [22:57] aco, there is egalitarianism in the kingdom, under christ, why not in the ministry too? [22:57] judith: are you using cultural relativism to support your idea that women whouls be ordained? [22:58] Judith now there is not [22:58] Judith no even [22:58] these political/social action groups are inter-related [22:58] Judith, in the Kingdom there is a heirarchy [22:58] no mac, i'm using personal experience and cultural bias [22:58] No, Bai, this is just when I am in a word document. [22:58] Mac that is another [22:58] in christ there is no hierarchy [22:58] we are all brothers and sisters [22:58] Judith look above [22:58] aurus: then, i dont know why its doing it, sorry [22:59] No problem, Bai.. Thanks anyway. [22:59] in BAPTISM we are all inthe covenant, NOT in the MINISTRY [22:59] yeah and? [22:59] d [22:59] Judith can you confect the Eucharist? [22:59] No [22:59] aco, we're all equal in christ, therefore God can call whomever he wants to do whatever job he wants regardless of what you or anyone else say [22:59] Aco, instead of arguing with Judith on the fact that you feel women should not be ordained, can you tell us why you think Paul felt the way he did? [22:59] so the argument goes on your side that the only problem you have with ordaining women priests is that it would open the dors so to speak to other 'undesireables' or are women in this group to [22:59] aco, no, i'm not currently ordained. but i have served communion [22:59] Aurus, sure pagan mystery cults and new converts [23:00] Judith not to me [23:00] What do you mean, mystery cults and new converts? [23:00] mac no, it changes the religion [23:00] I think the women who seek ordination are for the most part in this group. Not because they are women, but because they seek to force themselves into an [23:00] aco, no, probably not. i only serve in a closed setting - lcms [23:00] bye all.... [23:00] Maybe it improves the religion [23:00] Are you saying Paul was sexist to somehow attract mystery cult converts? [23:00] loath, youare wrong [23:00] Stevvve (shannon@ left irc: Leaving [23:00] office that they are not meant to occupy [23:00] If it makes it more inclusive. [23:00] you think i WANT to be a pastor? [23:00] woo [23:00] aurus the religious context of corinth, new converts frm the pagan myster cults where some women were "prophetesses" and hence usurping authority int he church [23:01] thus they align themselves with more of the same [23:01] judith you talk like it [23:01] acolyte: this point might have some force if there wsa unifromity of opinion on what this religion should be like [23:01] I think that earlier pedophiles remark was uncalled for. [23:01] aco, i talk like someone who has given their will over to God in that matter [23:01] that is people who seek ordination as a priveladge not a calling [23:01] acolyte: but look at the variety of sects and forms of worship [23:01] Aco, so.. are all women today prophetesses? If not, why not ordinate them? [23:01] Mac there is, rad teh Father [23:01] i dont' WANT it, but i know it's what God wants for me [23:01] Mac there is, rad teh Fathers [23:01] Thus, the church becomes an institution on par with secular orders [23:01] aurus no you misunderstand [23:01] loaht, who are you to say whom God can and cannot call? [23:01] laothain exactly [23:02] Acolyte, perhaps so. Yet, I feel you cannot see the forest for the trees. [23:02] Judith whoa re you to say that God DOES call women to the Priesthood? [23:02] aurus I am arguing with 5 ppla t one time, give me a brak [23:02] aco, one who has been CALLED [23:02] I am not one to say! I think God has already made that clear. You see the gays say the same thing,"who are you to challenge my calling?" [23:02] judith how am I to know that? because YOU say so? [23:02] judith subjective [23:02] loath, well they have a point. [23:02] Geez. [23:02] Oh, i see. Ordained women will somehow bring the Church "down" to the level of pagan cults?> [23:02] aco, take it up with God. [23:03] Exactly right. you cannot rightly challenge their calling. [23:03] Sheesh. [23:03] What does that say about your and Paul's view of women? [23:03] I am not one to say what God has already made clear. [23:03] judith in Acts, the congregants CHOOSE the ministers, NOT the person himself/herself [23:03] what would you consider proof of my calling? [23:03] anselm wanna bet? [23:03] aco, and God chooses those who have the gifts for it [23:03] judith Scripture, Tradition [23:03] judith, does he? [23:03] Acolyte, no breaks here. Consider this a defense of your thesis ;-) [23:03] Cherri (cskelly.co@aux87.plano.net) joined #apologetics. [23:03] aco, tradition means little. [23:03] I can, however, hold up the traditional and confessional standards of the church. [23:03] aco, uh..yeah. last time i read 1 cor 12 he did [23:03] judith I thought he used the foolish things to confound the wise [23:03] did it change? [23:03] judith I thought he used the foolish things to confound the wise [23:03] Judith The Bible is tradition [23:04] Cherri (cskelly.co@aux87.plano.net) left #apologetics. [23:04] the bible is scripture [23:04] Hmm..it all comes down to tradition. In my opinion, tradition is what holds any church or organization back from true brilliance.. [23:04] Judith what does the termScripture mean? Writings. Scripture is written tradition [23:04] zip (wireless@pm01-38.cdc.net) left #apologetics. [23:04] Argh. [23:04] aurus your brillance is my evil [23:04] i don't interpret the bible with a tradition filter. the bible interprets itself. [23:05] Judith wax nose [23:05] Did I say tradition alone? [23:05] Not [23:05] judith according to whose authoritative hermenutic? [23:05] tradition, scripture, and confession, along with human reason. [23:05] Acolyte, perhaps so, but I think you will find it very difficult to defend non-ordination of women solely on the basis of tradition. [23:05] judith: that makes no sense [23:05] Loathian amen [23:05] Sure you do, j [23:05] Aurus wanna bet? [23:05] and aco, you are welcome to your opnions, i'm sorry you have had such a bad experience. but it is unfair to stereotype all people who hold one or two similar beliefs with some wacko group [23:05] Judith I have read the theology, I lived it. I know [23:05] and this conversation is pointless. you cannot retract my call, and you're not going to. i don't know what you would consider proof of it [23:06] Apparently I do or else I would not have made that statement. I will allow that you will most likely be fairly safe in your own paradigm, but not outside it. [23:06] You are just ignorant of which tradition it is. [23:06] judith subjective [23:06] but just as proof of anything spiritual is subjective, trying to prove it is pointless. [23:06] and irrelevant. [23:06] If you were a bit self critical, you would soon discover just what tradition that is. [23:06] oops [23:06] judith subejectism [23:06] aco, whatever. [23:06] you prove one of your spiritual experiences to me and i'll prove mine to you. [23:07] I think if you look closely, you would see that most who aregue for women's, gay, et cetera ordination are more often than not fueled by a secular rights based tradition [23:07] then withdraw yourself from me. [23:07] judith I am and have done so [23:07] if you want this to divide our friendship of many months, that's your decision. [23:07] judith nothing personal, just Ecclesiology [23:07] then so be it. [23:07] no, it's very personal [23:08] Judith I think it is rather presumptious to tear apaprt the seemless agrment of christ for what you personally feel is right. [23:08] you have insulted me, my faith, my opinions, my beliefs, my calling. [23:08] all i have left is my name and my God. [23:08] fortunately that's enough for me. [23:08] Judith same problem as Luther had [23:08] aco, what i personally feel is right is irrelevant in the light of my calling. [23:08] Judith your God is an Idol then. It is not the Recieved Faith. [23:08] Judith your calling is a personal feeling [23:08] aco, well if i'm remembered 500 years from now half as much as luther is i'll be more than happy [23:09] I cannot judge truth on feelings as you well know [23:09] aco, there you go. now you've taken away my God (or tried to) [23:09] anything else? [23:09] Judith its an idol [23:09] aco, no, it's God. [23:09] it is not the recievd teaching [23:09] sorry. [23:09] jusith I always knew we would part over this [23:09] aco, it is the teaching i received. i have no choice but to follow it [23:09] Judith not fromthe Apostles [23:09] aco, the parting is your doing. not mine [23:09] aco, fromGod. [23:09] it is Modern, not apostolic [23:09] and God overrides the apostles [23:09] Same with Joseph Smith [23:10] it is what i have. [23:10] you'd make a nice mormon [23:10] Modernity is in some way inferior? [23:10] I think that is one of the problems with women's ordination. They are "feelings" driven. Thus, the move for gay ardination. They are sympathetic and [23:10] Hey! Mormonism! [23:10] aurus yes [23:10] i'm hardly going to go and write my own scripture and delude millions of people worldwide [23:10] loath, no. [23:10] Acolyte, don't be condescending. It is not intellectually honest. [23:10] Finally a topic I find moderately interesting! [23:10] aurus be an example to me then [23:10] feelings driven. Not rational and not analytical. It all too often boils down to a subjective feeling [23:10] i wish i could make you undersatnd that i received my calling fromGod and no one else [23:10] Judith because you say so? not good enough [23:10] Loath, why must you inextricably link the two, female and gay ordination? [23:10] and it was not a feeling, it was a voice and a most direct call. [23:11] Judith feelings are not godo enough to tear apart the CHurch [23:11] Judith: that's what Koresh said, too. [23:11] aco, i cannot prove the movings of the spirit [23:11] Acolyte, I am a light unto your path already ;-) [23:11] judith YOU EARD GOD??????????????????????? [23:11] aco, it is not my intention nor my goal to tear apart the chuch [23:11] judith St paul did [23:11] Ely (psclater@ joined #apologetics. [23:11] yeah aco, i've seen demons too [23:11] Becuase in all mainline churches they are inextricably linked! [23:11] and talked to them [23:11] but i cna't prove that either [23:11] soi guess i'm wrong [23:11] Loath, I think you overgeneralize. [23:11] Evening all:-) [23:11] Ely be nice [23:12] First, i would contend that you have not attended a representative church in each of the mainline denoms.. [23:12] Aurus wanna bet? [23:12] When was the last time you examined the links between the various mainline "social" action groups? [23:12] I was not speaking to you. [23:12] Donna Steichen, UnGodly Rage:The Hidden Face o Catholic Feminism" [23:12] Acolyte, we really do have to discuss this problem you seem to have with gambling ;-) [23:12] aco...I gotta go. See you later, huh? [23:12] later cassidy [23:13] aco, haven't read her. i'm not into the the raging feminism stuff. [23:13] i think it's bunk too. [23:13] Loath, I do not concern myself greatly with the activities of mainline or even fringe denominations. [23:13] For example, in the PCUSA it is not mistake that the feminists (women's ordination), PLGC (Presbyterians for Lesbian and Gay concerns), abortion right [23:13] judith your theology is bunk? [23:13] s advocacy groups are usually the self-same people [23:13] aco, that is not my theology [23:13] aurs we've noticed [23:13] judith in essence it is [23:13] once again you've stereotyped me based on your limited experience [23:14] no aco. in assumption it is [23:14] Judith, query: what is "raging" feminism? [23:14] Judith, true. [23:14] judith your claims are subjective, they arenot verifiable in any meaiongful way. hence they do not overide the leading of tehSpirit in the Church [23:14] ans, your classic manhating feminist [23:14] aco, how does one prove the movings of the spirit? [23:14] judith, miracles [23:14] Well, then you can hardly question my linking of the issue when you are so unconcerned with the obvious links! [23:14] Judith Paul did [23:14] meaningful TO YOU, that is. [23:14] Judith Jesus did [23:14] judith, to the CHurch [23:14] aco, no, peter didn't believe him. [23:14] Acolyte, I am sure she has already asked you which church. Surely, you are not haughty enough to speak for the entire Body of Christ.. [23:14] no aco, to YOU [23:15] you are the one making assumptions about me [23:15] aurus I am [23:15] aurus it is not pride, it is fact [23:15] aco you're that haughty? [23:15] Sad. [23:15] ok [23:15] These links are the same amongst Catholics, Episc., et cetera with their respective groups such as Dignity, et cetera [23:15] Acolyte, I gave you enough credit to realize your own limitations.. [23:15] Judith the Church iN COuncil led bythe Spirit says your wrong [23:15] ? [23:15] aco, and God says he's right. [23:15] it's not me. [23:16] Judith where does God say that? In your FEELINGS [23:16] i'm just trying to be obedient [23:16] acolyte: led by the spirit? [23:16] judith same as mormonism [23:16] Judith, you will not win. Not because your cause is in error, but because of the sheer inertia against which you work. [23:16] aco, actually he said it in my ears, but fine...since no one else heard it.. [23:16] judith obedicnet to the CHurch, the Bride of Christ or to your feelings? [23:16] Cassidy_ (cassidy7@irv-ca14-06.ix.netcom.com) left irc: Ping timeout for Cassidy_[irv-ca14-06.ix.netcom.com] [23:16] Pride can always be dressed up in scriptural garb. [23:16] aco, why do you insist on insulting me with that analogy/ [23:16] judith how do you know it was God? [23:16] judith I apologze [23:16] Insults are the weapons of the cornered, Judith.. [23:16] aco, obedient to God, my creator and redeemer and friend [23:17] judith ho do u know it was God? [23:17] aco, because i've heard it before and i know my shepherd's voice [23:17] How? [23:17] and the church is supposed to take the word of you and women like you? Just like that? everyone else for 2,000 yrs has been wrong? [23:17] I find it amusing how when someone claims to be certain of some truth that it is somehow a sad thing and construed as arrogance? Yet, these same people seem so certain of either their positions or more amusing their uncertainty! [23:17] because i know my father's voice. [23:17] I find that EXCEDDINGLY hard to believe [23:18] aco, dont' believe me. i don't care. [23:18] Steady on all. [23:18] aurus rhetoric is the weapon of the ignorant [23:18] judith I don't [23:18] and i don't know if the church has been wrong or if it's a new thingl..but all i know is that *I* am called. [23:18] Acolyte, are you sure that Judith does <> know that voice? [23:18] Well, Acolyte you can either take her word or that of a collection of monks, fishermen, tax collectors and errant priests.. [23:18] aco, you've made that point clear. just continue insulting me. i'm sure you're not done with that. [23:18] Ely no, I am not sure, but how does she justify it? [23:19] aurus and infallible councils [23:19] judith your whole ideaology is an insult to me [23:19] Infallible in your theological paradigm... [23:19] Who am I to question the feelings and voices that drove the son of sam? [23:19] aurus correct [23:19] Even you must realize that your beliefs and truisms are not universally held.. [23:19] judith how do you knwo the Bible is the Word of God? [23:19] Acolyte 'because I know my father's voice' sounds a bit like classical faith to me. :_) [23:19] aco, my whole ideaology in your eyes is based on assumption [23:19] Aurus I knwo they are not but I think they should be [23:19] Obviously. [23:20] aco, now you're out to undermine my entire faith? [23:20] ely sounds liek fidiesm, not faith [23:20] what kind of brother are you? [23:20] judith I asked a question [23:20] judith I care more for you than you know [23:20] Oh my. [23:20] ahh...that's why i've been insulted to the nth degree [23:20] i get it.. [23:20] judith how do you knwo the Bible is the Word of God? [23:20] Acolyte, what is fidiesm? [23:20] judith no, because I am a sinner and I am doing the best Ic an [23:21] aco because it says so [23:21] ely fideism=blind irrational baseless beleif. [23:21] aco, then do better. we are called to a higher good. [23:21] Go ahead. Any of ya. Attack my faith. Attack my belief in God. C'mon. Go ahead. [23:21] judith I try [23:21] judith I am ebing honet with you, more than I am with hardly anyone else [23:21] on irc [23:21] You must see that [23:21] aco, insults and stereotypes and generalizations and assumptions are not very good attempts [23:21] whoah Acolyte...Is faith a rational act? [23:22] judith so, how do you differentiate ebtween the Bible and other divien bks? [23:22] Ely yes [23:22] ac, that is not how I use the term, or how it is usually defined. I consider myself a fideist insofar as I do not believe that is any knowledge [23:22] aco, i know you are being honest, and i appreciate that [23:22] bible+ bible [23:22] outside of God [23:22] Judith byt why bot the gilgamesh Epic? [23:22] laothian U know what I mean [23:22] haven't read it. [23:22] Are you saying that you are dishonest with others on IRC? [23:23] Aurus no I am being open [23:23] Ah. [23:23] no aur, he's saying that he's just being brutally honest about his feelings with me [23:23] judith why not any other bk tho? [23:23] That is laudable, but surely expected of anyone. [23:23] Understood, Judith. [23:23] aco, because no other book that i've read can live up to that standard [23:23] aurus there is more to win or loose here than an arguemt [23:23] judith what standard? [23:23] I use the term the way Augustine and Pascal did. [23:23] laothian dito [23:23] aco, i'mnot losing anything. [23:24] Acolyte, I am sure you feel that way, but I do not share your fatalistic view of this exchange. [23:24] judith perhaps [23:24] Acolyte, how is faith a rational act? [23:24] my calling, my God, my faith, none of it. [23:24] i have no choice but to follow his commands. [23:24] it's the only way that I will be truly happy in this life. [23:24] ely faithis personal trust based on knowledge [23:24] I do not think it is rational or irational but supra-rational [23:24] I am certain that Judith's calling to minister to her fellow Christians will not bring the Church to its knees. [23:24] laothia en arche ho logos<----rational [23:25] aur, and if it does, so be it. [23:25] judith THERE [23:25] Perhaps it was for the best, Judith ;-) [23:25] Acolyte: what knowledge? [23:25] you wold kill the church for your personal feelings [23:25] what aco? [23:25] insofar as I do not think one can reason their way to God. I do tend to think faith is received from God. [23:25] my greek sucks [23:25] aco no. [23:25] i would not [23:25] Ely of the truth of certain propositions [23:25] you just said "so be it" [23:25] and my personal feelings have nothing to do with my calling [23:25] Acolyte, specifically what? [23:25] But the word cam from God. [23:25] I do not think that is at all what she was saying. [23:25] The word was God [23:25] aco, if that is God's intention and plan, then who am i to argue with him? [23:25] ely existence of God, etc [23:26] but i seriously doubt that it would happen [23:26] Judith, I understand what you meant by that statement. [23:26] in the beginning was the word, J [23:26] loathian God was Logic [23:26] loath, and the Word became flesh and make his tabernacle among us [23:26] judith but if it did you would be willing to destroy the church for your subjective xpereinces [23:26] aco no. [23:26] judith how can you attackthe Bride of Christ like that? [23:26] i am not willing to do that and would do everything in my power not to do that [23:27] JUd you just said it [23:27] aco, it's not an attack [23:27] I was just giving you his greek, j [23:27] no aco... [23:27] JUd you just said it [23:27] JUd you just said it [23:27] aco, no, i did not. [23:27] He is an ass head [23:27] ooops [23:27] wrong window [23:27] i said that if it is God's plan to use me in that manner, so be it. [23:27] aur, and if it does, so be it. [23:27] no yousaid IF it does [23:27] Sorry, I was talking to a friend about j. spong [23:28] and clicked the wrong window [23:28] [Aurus] I am certain that Judith's calling to minister to her fellow Christians will not bring the Church to its knees. [23:28] if what does? Aurus talked about destroying the church, adn you said if it does, so be it. pretty clear [23:28] THAT is what i was responding to [23:28] Do you think Jesus ever referred to anyone as an ass head? [23:28] aur was referring to my call..not my feelings [23:28] yeah, and yousaid if it did, SO BE IT [23:28] Exactly, Judith. [23:28] judith calling=subejective expereince [23:28] hawk- (bhawk@mh153a.resmeier.andrews.edu) left irc: Leaving [23:28] judith calling=subejective expereince [23:28] capiche? [23:28] aco, if God calls me in that way and directs my paths and uses me in that manner, i must submit [23:28] it is not objective [23:29] aco no. [23:29] i don't capiche [23:29] judith, God would not destroy his church [23:29] Acolyte, perhaps what you see as the Church is in fact the Babylonian Whore and it is God's Will that it fall.. [23:29] do you argue your priest's calling? [23:29] This *is* a possibility.. [23:29] capiche = understaind? [23:29] Aurus if thatis so then the Gospel is lost, which is NOT a possibility [23:29] unterstand even.. [23:29] ely yes [23:29] aco, God would certainly rock the boat. [23:29] <> understand. typos:_) [23:29] judith yes and he has, but he does not change his revelation [23:29] Acolyte, thanks. [23:29] no, he doesn't [23:29] judith nor the leading of the Spirit for 2000 yrs [23:30] why not? [23:30] Acolyte, I simply contend that your theology may be in error, while the Gospel itself remains thoroughly intact and inviolable. [23:30] judith he says so [23:30] why can't he do something new for a change (if it is indeed new) [23:30] aco, and HE told me to be a pastor in no uncertain or less words [23:30] aurus the Gosperl and the church are linked together. U can't have one without th other [23:30] and i must obey [23:30] Judith, How do you know? [23:30] Does God order his ppl to break with his Bride? No [23:30] aco because i've tried to deny it for the last 5 years [23:30] Did the prophets call ppl to abandon the Temple? NO [23:31] ordaining women will not break that [23:31] Judith, seducing Spirits [23:31] we're not that bad [23:31] aco, no. [23:31] jduith it already has [23:31] i know the difference [23:31] aco, in your church. not in mine [23:31] judith sure you do that is why they are called SEUCING spirits [23:31] Acolyte, I am saying that your church may not be The Church.. [23:31] judith well you'r enot in a church, thats the problems [23:31] aco, i'm not? [23:31] aurus sure it is not THE CHurch, but is A Chruch [23:31] judith nope [23:32] J, I am sure you have a calling, but is it to be ordained? Also what denomination? Does your denomination ordain women? You see [23:32] damn...better tell that to the people writing out my paychecks [23:32] Judith changed the theodosis [23:32] and better renig my membership [23:32] You fully understand my point, Acolyte. [23:32] Judith what makes a church [23:32] loath, my denomination does not ordain women. [23:32] aurus do you understand mine? [23:32] but the church i work in does. [23:32] most women's ordinations split churches, and I find that hard to believe was an act of God [23:32] Loathian more defiance [23:32] Utterly. [23:32] aco, i am the church...you are the church...we are the church together.... [23:32] judith the Church is where the Bishop is [23:32] Then, you are most definitely not called [23:33] loath, wrong. [23:33] loathian, more disobedience to heiarchy, see the pattern [23:33] but that's ok. i can't expect you to hear the same call i did. [23:33] You can not be called to destroy a church. [23:33] It all seems to come down to a power struggle. Acolyte characterizes ordination as defiance...Judith views it as progress. [23:33] laothian pride and disobediance [23:33] i'm not. [23:34] judith then obey [23:34] It is duly noted that throughout history, other such struggles have been seen. [23:34] <> [23:34] judith obediance is betetr than sacrifice [23:34] Our nation was born in just such a struggle.. [23:34] Ely (psclater@ left #apologetics. [23:34] aurus the brits were right ;) [23:37] Perhaps so, but they lost.. [23:37] not after the Tradition which WE recieved [23:37] Methinks it is high time for a new topic. [23:37] Ely (psclater@ joined #apologetics. [23:37] Ely (psclater@ left #apologetics. [23:37] i'm waiting patiently for my denomination to get around to it [23:37] aur, not necessarily even that. i view it as personal obedience [23:37] and honesty [23:37] i wish i could back away from the call. [23:37] Action: Judith lags [23:37] aco, i'm trying [23:37] Baimei (baimei@ got netsplit. [23:37] but the will of the flesh and bank account is strong [23:37] judith still disobediance, your parish is in disobediance [23:37] You are no different from all the other groups that put their personal feeling above the order and peace of the church. We are not talking about [23:37] judith youare Elca right? [23:37] a church selling justification! [23:37] 17 seconds, Judith. [23:37] i wish you could understand my situatio [23:37] Like I said, a rights based secular tradition fueled by a sanctimonious "progressive" hermeneutic. [23:37] aco, no. [23:37] no aco, i'mnot. [23:37] i'm lcms [23:37] judith the LCMS will not ordain women [23:37] and as much as i love my church, i love my God more. [23:37] It would be different, if you were seeking a call within a denomination that accepted such practices. Like gays and the mcc. Yet, like them your call [23:37] is to a denomination that says no. [23:37] not presently [23:38] loathina exactly [23:38] judith they proll will not [23:38] maybe someday [23:38] judith they are also inerrantists as well [23:38] aco, dont' take away my hope too. [23:38] judith I know many profs at Concordia West [23:38] i know many at concordia st. paul [23:38] Hey, why is it in America where you can virtually find a church that caters to what ever you believe, gays, women, and other radicals have to shove their views and "calls" off on all others? [23:38] Judith I did not, someone else did [23:39] Women are now radicals, Loath? [23:39] Judith the LCMS would split over women's ordionation [23:39] judith I know it would [23:39] God is in charge. [23:39] judith, yeah sure, destroy the church some more, nice excuse for your ecclesiastical terroism [23:40] judithI have seenthe self righteous before [23:40] Aurus (osiris@dial43.probe.net) left irc: Leaving [23:40] terrorism? [23:40] i am hardly a terrorist [23:40] they are ruthless for their ideaology [23:40] judith sure are [23:40] why not go to ELCA [23:40] i'm not self righteous. you should know that [23:40] why are you in the LCMS [23:40] judith sure are [23:40] aco, because i don't agree with many elca opinions [23:40] "I am called by God and the Churhc must submit to what I think God told me> Self rightous [23:40] aco, no [23:41] Judith and obviously not many LCMS opinions [23:41] judith that is what youa re saying [23:41] actually quite a few. [23:41] aco, i'm not self righteous [23:41] You are sayign not only that the LCMS is repressive and wrng but so is the ACC and any other [23:41] denom [23:41] Loathian (Daedalus@68.net4.nauticom.net) left irc: Ping timeout for Loathian[68.net4.nauticom.net] [23:41] when did i say that? [23:42] judith well is only the LCMS to ordain women or are we all to do it too? [23:42] i only know my calling and the path i'm led upon [23:42] which? [23:42] judith well is only the LCMS to ordain women or are we all to do it too? [23:42] which? [23:42] aco, i don' tcare. [23:42] ah now youdon't care [23:42] don't care about the rest of Christ's flock IC [23:42] if the lcms isn't to do it, then i will be led elsewhere. but as of today, i have not. [23:42] justcare about your calling [23:42] judith that is NOT what I asked [23:42] judith well is only the LCMS to ordain women or are we all to do it too? [23:43] which is it? [23:43] Baimei (baimei@ got lost in the net-split. [23:43] aco, i'm supposed to put the church before God? [23:43] aco, everyone is to follow the will of God, correct? [23:43] judith if it was not for the church you would not have God [23:43] i doubt that. [23:43] Jusith how will they hear unless a preacher is sent [23:43] ? [23:43] who sends preachers? [23:43] the pagans? [23:43] nope [23:43] God does [23:43] the church does [23:43] thru the church [23:43] hence God works thru the church [23:43] in any way he chooses [23:44] he's God afterall.. [23:44] inparticualr ways [23:44] God works in many and mysterious ways [23:44] he has chosen particualr ways [23:44] he's not limited to one way [23:44] sure but you don't use pizza and coke for Eucharist, why not? [23:44] He is limited to his covenant and his moral character adn the lawsof logic [23:44] because jesus didnt' say "this pizza is my body" [23:44] which are his essene [23:45] judith OH but God can do it any way he likes, [23:45] since when is Godlimited to logic? [23:45] we can use coke now [23:45] judith oh so God can do the illogical? [23:45] his ways are not our ways [23:45] he can do make 2 +2=9? [23:45] square circles? [23:45] nope [23:45] not possible [23:45] en arche ho logos...pron ton theon [23:46] God=Logic [23:46] the Bible says so, the Fathers so so as well [23:46] say so even [23:46] so we can use coke now [23:46] then we disagree. are we to part friendship now? [23:46] because after all [23:46] he can do anything he likes [23:46] jjudith yes [23:46] but know this [23:46] there is a great rift between us [23:46] then go in God's grace and blessings [23:47] judith, your callingis based on neo-gnostic Natural theology [23:47] I was raised by it [23:47] in it [23:47] tuaght it [23:47] my call is from God himself [23:47] says you [23:47] take a number [23:48] I have billions of other subjectivistst who think God told them things [23:48] it is not verifiable in any way [23:48] i think you know me well enough to know that i am not a subjectivist [23:48] it is not from any authority doesin miracles to verify their message [23:48] it is from the authority of God [23:48] judith I know youwell enough to know that at the heart of it, liberal theology is gnostic and subjectivisttic [23:49] judith says you [23:49] the God of this world gives signs [23:49] where are you signs? [23:49] aco, and you say that is it not from God. [23:49] my signs? [23:49] what signs do you want? [23:50] miracles [23:50] all the apostles did them [23:50] so did JEsus [23:50] and moses [23:50] adn the prophets [23:50] miracles? [23:50] do your priests do miracles? [23:50] where are yours to verify the new message [23:50] on command? [23:50] no, they don't give new information from God either [23:50] judith when you do one let me see it or hear about it from a reliabel sources [23:51] what do you consider reliable sources? [23:51] or are you above the same standard that Jesus adn the Apostles held to [23:51] and what sign would you like? [23:51] any [23:51] any mirculous sing [23:51] no, be specific. [23:51] sign [23:51] if it's God's will he'll give it to you. [23:51] a voice from heaven [23:51] perhaps? [23:51] so name it in the name of the one who is able. [23:51] to you? [23:52] to multiple ppl [23:52] brb [23:52] i suppose my mom doesn't count? ;) [23:52] A-Zone (rkaimer@dialin-21.eznet.net) joined #apologetics. [23:52] A-Zone (rkaimer@dialin-21.eznet.net) left #apologetics. [23:53] hawk (bhawk@mh153a.resmeier.andrews.edu) joined #apologetics. [23:53] what? [23:53] whatd o you mean? [23:53] just making a joke. [23:53] ic [23:53] so you would like a voice from heaven telling you that my call was indeed from God? [23:53] just confirming. [23:53] something to confirm your message and new information from God, after all, you are talking about changing 2000 yrs of the Spirits leading [23:53] sure [23:54] be specific in what you want. [23:54] heard by other ppl inthe same room [23:54] so I know I am not going crazy [23:54] heh [23:54] or fire from heaven on the altar [23:54] Trust me. Agnosticism is simpler. [23:54] milhous and more irrational [23:54] so you're not in the habit of interacting with the spiritual ;) [23:54] judith most definately I am [23:54] Oh? How so? [23:54] milhouse ignorance is not an argument [23:54] unfortunately, i am. voices and visions are not uncommon to me [23:55] That's why I'm being good and quiet. [23:55] and that is my assurance. i have been given discernment. however those experiences are subjective as well, in your standards [23:55] milohouse well at least your consistent [23:55] judith by any standard [23:55] judith Q [23:55] but i suppose i could track down the guy whose demons i talked to for 2 hours. [23:55] have u always been Lutheran? [23:55] aco, yup [23:56] and i love the lutheran church [23:56] nika (nika@ joined #apologetics. [23:56] JudithI have been in exocisms as well [23:56] it wasn't an exorcism. [23:56] judith I know what the demonic is like [23:56] he wasn't willing. [23:56] I know how it feels [23:56] but [23:56] i know what the demonic LOOKS like [23:56] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp30.snni.com) joined #apologetics. [23:56] anselm (nobyte@slip191.UCS.ORST.EDU) left #apologetics. [23:56] fire from heaven on the alter of my church next sunday duyring mass would do the trick [23:57] hey ned [23:57] i know what it sounds like. and i have had the fortune to hear my Father's voice on 2 occasions. [23:57] aco, then you must be open to the miracle if it is God's will. [23:57] re acolyte [23:57] forgive my skepticism [23:57] judith sure [23:57] judith next sunday then? [23:57] i will pray for it, and you must pray for a receptive mind and heart [23:57] judith does God need my permission to make fire come down? [23:57] but also remember that God doesn't always bend to our wills. [23:57] CultRsch (cultrsch@p48sb.pionet.net) joined #apologetics. [23:58] judith I am open to the possibilityof it, but I will wait to see whatGod does [23:58] aco, no, but you have to be willing to see it. [23:58] Judith and if God does no miracle then what? [23:58] does that mean you're wrong? [23:58] or perhaps God does not want me to believe your new message [23:58] ? [23:58] when God didn't do miracles on command like a trained dog in the bible, what happens? [23:59] judith, God gives miracles when he gives new revelation [23:59] and if he doesn't do it, then i have some thinking and praying to do. [23:59] you are giving NEW revelation, where are the miracles [23:59] ? [23:59] judith sure does [23:59] and if he does, you will. [23:59] judith I will be wiating with my camera [00:00] irght up their Acolyting [00:00] i'm not the first aco. [00:00] next to the Altar [00:00] and if it happens, it's going to be a sign for me. beleive me. [00:00] NedFlndrs (Dananova@ppp30.snni.com) left #apologetics. [00:00] Flight (Daedalus@ joined #apologetics. [00:00] if it does not it will be a sign as well [00:00] one that i don't want. [00:00] uh huh, sure [00:00] Action: Milhous has never seen a sign of God. [00:00] but it's hard to pray for someting you don't want. [00:00] "not my will, but yours be done" [00:00] judith Iknow [00:00] judithI will wait [00:01] CultRsch (cultrsch@p48sb.pionet.net) left #apologetics. [00:01] i wish you could understand how difficult this is for me. [00:01] Flight (Daedalus@ left irc: Leaving [00:01] judith I have givent hat challaneg to may groups, none yes has done it [00:01] judith I do understand, trust me [00:01] it's not up to me to do. [00:01] no, i don't think you do. [00:01] judith I use to be in the Way INternational [00:01] I do, trust me [00:01] that means nothing to me [00:01] judith I used to thnk i spoke intongues too [00:01] way internation? what is that? [00:01] and god talked to me [00:01] aco, so did i... [00:01] yeah sure [00:02] way international=cult [00:02] oh. [00:02] Icarus_ (Daedalus@ joined #apologetics. [00:02] Icarus_ (Daedalus@ left irc: Leaving [00:02] anti-trinitarian cullt [00:02] hey icarus [00:02] ok [00:02] but like I said b4 [00:02] but you cannot understand my situation from that. [00:02] i have given this challange b4,nothign happens [00:02] to countless groups [00:03] nothing happens [00:03] you don't understand [00:03] even *I* don't want it to happen [00:03] i don't want it to be true [00:03] right [00:03] i don't want confirmation [00:03] do you two ever get tired? [00:03] i don't. [00:03] or are you bots :) [00:03] i really honestly and truly don't. [00:03] heh mac [00:03] judith why? [00:03] aco, because i don't want to do it. [00:03] why? [00:03] Judith let me share soemthng with you [00:03] because it scares me. [00:04] CultRsch (cultrsch@p48sb.pionet.net) joined #Apologetics. [00:04] because *I* can't see myself doing it. [00:04] judith I waited almost 10 yrs without saying anything for confirmation to be a priesty [00:04] i'm afraid of what will happen to my marriage. [00:04] judith I waited almost 10 yrs without saying anything for confirmation to be a priest [00:04] aco, i've gone 5 years already [00:04] and i don't want confirmation. [00:04] judith God moved to have me be one, I did nothing [00:04] I kept my mouth shut [00:04] bleah [00:04] and let others see my good works [00:04] and he's moving to make me one [00:04] they decided, NOT me [00:04] we'll see [00:05] i understand your point. [00:05] CultRsch (cultrsch@p48sb.pionet.net) left #Apologetics. [00:05] but he keeps redirecting my paths from what i want and plan to his way [00:05] sure [00:05] right [00:05] judith how old are you? [00:05] aco, are you trying to be that insulting? [00:05] no, just skeptical [00:05] how old are you? [00:05] i undestand that you don't bleieve me on this issue, but i wish you could understand the situation for anyone. regardless of their gender. [00:05] i'm 23 [00:06] Beans (Beans@www-17-152.gnn.com) joined #apologetics. [00:06] :) [00:06] Nick change: Milhous -> Arthur [00:06] judith it seems odd to me that women between the ages of 25 and 45 and have been influenced by liberal theology all of a sudden start hearing God's call tothe ministry [00:06] judith kinda odd how it just fits the culture huh? [00:07] and the theology [00:07] i was not influenced by it when it happened. i was not asking for it [00:07] Nick change: Arthur -> Milhous [00:07] i'm sorry you see it that way. [00:07] Icarus (Daedalus@ joined #apologetics. [00:07] sure [00:07] and i'm sorry you can't by sympathetic to my situation. [00:07] judith I have seen more parishes destroyed by what youare talking about thatn I have fingers and tows ten times over [00:07] nika (nika@ left #apologetics. [00:07] judith I know whole familaies that have been destrtoyed [00:07] well everyone I am off - I need nourishment :) - take care - and fight nice! [00:07] !op [00:07] whole careers [00:07] MacBinary (ircle@dial196159.wbm.ca) left irc: [00:08] that's the way jesus works though [00:08] judith did he? [00:08] not with Paul he did not [00:08] Night Mac! [00:08] judith that is the crucial difference for me in beig Anglican and seeing the Reformation traditions [00:09] we had a reformation, they had a revoltution [00:09] and it has not stoped [00:09] judith he did [00:09] and he still does [00:09] does he? [00:09] I am not so sure [00:09] yes [00:09] not to the church he does not [00:10] Acolyte: your reformation was only to provide Henry 8th a divorce. [00:10] Nothing religious about that. [00:10] judithit already happaned [00:10] 70 AD [00:10] and it still happens [00:10] judith not liek that [00:11] yes. exactly like that. [00:11] there was a covenantal transtition, there is not one now [00:11] hold on [00:11] @nasb seek kingdom taken away [00:11] families are still divided over it. [00:12] what is this with this bot man? [00:12] anyway...this has been very draining [00:12] Nick change: Milhous -> Marvin [00:12] judith I will wait [00:12] Beans (Beans@www-17-152.gnn.com) left #apologetics. [00:12] judith you have 7 days to pray [00:13] that will be my prayer. [00:13] Nick change: Marvin -> Milhous [00:14] if i am not serving God then he will be the one to reveal that to me. [00:14] buh [00:14] mil, if you don't like it, then leave [00:15] Icarus (Daedalus@ left irc: http://www.nauticom.net/www/loathian [00:15] hrm...the wrap didn't work for me. [00:15] hawk (bhawk@mh153a.resmeier.andrews.edu) left irc: interesting [00:16] ahh..my buffer was full [00:16] they knew it was about THEM [00:16] well then i'm either to be a building stone or a rejected rock. [00:16] capiche [00:17] either youare in the house or broken like pottery [00:17] i guess so [00:17] either one is a scary idea for me [00:17] galileo2 (galileo@n164.solano.community.net) joined #apologetics. [00:17] and i wish you could undestand that. [00:18] i do'nt want either outcome. [00:18] galileo2 (galileo@n164.solano.community.net) left irc: [00:19] but i must seek counsel on that quandry from someone else who is able to sympathize [00:19] Reade (holtsland@ joined #Apologetics. [00:20] Hello all [00:20] I'm back [00:20] Did u resolve the women in ministry issue? [00:20] nope [00:20] duster (John@Kirk.infowest.com) joined #apologetics. [00:20] galileo (galileo@n164.solano.community.net) joined #apologetics. [00:21] Well if its any consolation, Judith, I don't think that women and homosexuals go together when we're talking about ordination. [00:21] Hello duster [00:21] Hello galileo [00:21] hi [00:21] thanks reade. but it isn't much consolation [00:21] hey [00:21] I know it isn't. Sorry. [00:22] that's ok. i appreciate your attempt :) [00:22] So what's up? [00:22] Action: Judith is having a personal quandry now [00:22] A personal quandry? What kind? [00:22] well, aco wants some sort of a sign [00:22] so i'm willing to pray for that. [00:23] however, it means that i have to pray for something that will go one of two ways, and neither of which i want. [00:23] A sign? Of what? [00:23] he wants fire on the altar at his church next sunday [00:23] buh [00:23] a sign that my calling is true. [00:24] do you have a calling to the ministry Judith? [00:24] yes [00:24] but aco doesn't believe i do [00:24] well, God bless you [00:24] becuse i can't prove it. [00:25] of course you can't [00:25] well tell that to him [00:25] but i will pray that God gives him the assurance he asks for. [00:25] who is he to you? [00:25] I grew up in denomination that says I can't have a calling either. [00:26] who is aco? well, i think he's a friend. you'll have to ask him about that one. [00:26] i can deal with an organization and group of people being skeptical. but dealing with a friend is much more difficult. [00:26] God chooses, not man [00:26] I hear you, Judith. [00:26] i agree. [00:27] To be set upon by those who u love and love u is much more difficult. [00:27] unless a man hates his mother , father sister and brother he cannot follow Jesus [00:27] John somewhere [00:27] and if my calling is indeed confirmed with this sign, i have many many more people to deal with that will be even more difficult...myself included. [00:27] Perhaps set upon is the wrong words. [00:28] hmm not it [00:29] Is there a channel that anyone knows about that discusses Theological issues. [00:29] That is to say Christian Theology. [00:29] Reads this is the closest youare going to get to it [00:29] heh...aco and i are usually willing [00:29] Ok [00:30] sorry ;) [00:30] Reads #bible is a hodgbodge of sects [00:30] galileo (galileo@n164.solano.community.net) left #apologetics. [00:30] I'm writing a paper on Christology for a Theology class and was just wondering. [00:30] @@@luke 14:26 [00:30] Sects? [00:30] what flavor of christology? [00:31] Reads where are you taking Theology? [00:31] Our text is by Millard J. Erickson. [00:31] yuk [00:31] @ luke 14:26 [00:31] bad author [00:31] i'm not familiar with him. i defer to the literary sponge, acolyte ;) [00:32] lets his bais show [00:32] I'm taking Theology at Canadian Bible College. [00:32] bias [00:32] IC [00:32] well Erikson is a moderate Dispie Arminian Baptist [00:32] not very even handed [00:32] Regina, Saskatchewan. The official school in Canada for the C&MA [00:32] tho he is better read than most Baptsts [00:32] the what? C&MA? [00:32] reade? you're at the u of r? [00:33] oh.....i considered going there [00:33] my husband is from regina [00:33] Really? Cool. [00:33] Action: Judith lived there for 4 months [00:34] Judith U thot of attending U of R or CBC? [00:34] hmm [00:34] why can't I get ACts? [00:34] hhhmm [00:35] karen-1 (ajanssen@irv-ca16-22.ix.netcom.com) joined #apologetics. [00:35] brb [00:35] i attended u of r for a summer (language immersion courses - cree) and cbc [00:35] hi karen [00:35] and considered cbc [00:35] hi [00:35] Acolyte My bro thinks that characterizing Erickson as a dispie is bizarre. [00:36] did you go to the u of r? [00:36] Judith When did u attend CBC? [00:36] Acolyte - I can see you have been thinking about last Thursday night. [00:36] i didn't...i considered it. [00:36] I never attended U of R. [00:36] Oh, I see. [00:36] Action: Judith has attended luther seminary in st. paul though [00:37] Action: Reade is interested in this [00:37] in? [00:37] Anyone interested in evolution/creation? [00:37] nope [00:37] but they're doing it on #creation mil [00:37] Sorry I'm showing my bro and sis in law how IRC works. [00:38] Me neither, me neither!!!! [00:39] philo_ (user@ joined #apologetics. [00:40] philo_ (user@ left #apologetics. [00:40] Action: Acolyte attends Holyrood Seminary and has attended Fuller Seminary [00:41] aco, and how are you applying that? [00:41] Judith what is the idea? [00:41] the group choose [00:41] Acolyte What about Junia? Wasn't she an apostle? Was she not called? [00:41] the ppl did not assert themselves [00:41] reads she was one who was sent [00:41] they were messengers to confirm what was being said [00:41] reads read the Fathers on Junia, pretty clear [00:42] Sent? What do u mean? [00:42] they're confirming. [00:42] Why not read the Bible? [00:42] Read she was Called by the group, not herself [00:42] and their qualifications are this: [00:42] judith your point? [00:42] judith and who choose them? The CHurch [00:42] the fact that they are men is irrelevant to the point they're making [00:42] I know I am not appealing t that [00:42] and they were not pastors..they were sent to confirm a message [00:43] I am appealing to the CHurch doing the calling [00:43] sure and they were sent by the CHurch [00:43] that is not the same calling i'm talking about [00:43] sure, so? [00:43] is it a question of law or walking in the spirit? [00:43] ok, but Paul also tells timothy that he, being a BIshop, to have the congregation choose men for the ministry [00:44] duster the two are not opposed [00:44] duster hold to the recieved tradition, weather in word or writing [00:44] pretty obvious [00:45] they can be [00:45] what is needed is insight, not legalistic discussions [00:45] tradition is circumcision [00:45] not quite the one i am looking for [00:46] judith the early Church did not have women presbyters not bishops. [00:46] Reade (holtsland@ left irc: Ping timeout for Reade[] [00:46] its just that simple [00:46] allthe fathers AND mothers of the Church agree [00:46] it just isn't there [00:46] so what? [00:46] Judith you see I was raised with the beleif you hold. I did not part with it lightly [00:46] in the early church, women were not permitted to speak [00:47] judith so, if it was apostolic teaching it would be recoreded there [00:47] judith wrong [00:47] women had to worship separately so as not to distract the men [00:47] judith that was only at corinth [00:47] so you apply cultural context at will? [00:47] judith due to the mystery religion influence [00:47] judith no, when it is obvious [00:47] women had no social standing. no one would have listened to them [00:48] judith false [00:48] Acolyte - what are the specific restrictions? [00:48] women were very prominate in the Isis cults and other mystery religions [00:48] karen-1 for what? [00:48] For "teaching men" or pastoring [00:48] i'm talking about the culture in general and the culture surrounding the early church [00:48] Anyone wanna visit #creation? [00:49] women were legally defined as property [00:49] women had no value independent of a man, be it their father, husband, or brother. [00:49] no mil, but you're welcome to [00:49] duster depends on the culture [00:49] judith not in Roman law [00:49] Already there. Whoopee. [00:49] judith perhaps in some Jewishcutoms but not in jewish law [00:49] the culture of the early church [00:49] aco, in the culture. [00:49] that's just the way it was. [00:49] duster which was part of the WHAT Empire? Roman [00:50] and it's own legal system [00:50] mil, then quit the comments here. [00:50] Wasn't that the same Jewish culture in which men prayed in thanks to God for NOT being born a Pagan, Gentile or WOMAN? [00:50] Judea also defined women as property [00:50] judith the pagan religions were quite egalitarian [00:50] karen-1 yes, so? [00:50] karen-1 so Jesus was sexist? [00:50] And the same Rome where girl babies were exposed to die at the whim of their FATHER? [00:51] karen-1 so God had to wait for man to change before he would change man? [00:51] Mary and Martha didn't think so [00:51] No - just pointing out that the culture did NOT esteem women very highly [00:51] peav (peav@max4-87.sound.net) joined #apologetics. [00:51] Jesus was revolutionary in his dealing with women. [00:51] kaen-1 he was? did or ordain women to the preisthood? [00:51] No [00:52] He didn't ordain men either [00:52] duster sure did [00:52] No - but he SPOKE to them as real people. [00:52] show mw [00:52] peav (peav@max4-87.sound.net) left #apologetics. [00:52] that's normal christian life [00:52] gee he sent them, he ordained them with the spirit,pretty obvious [00:53] ? [00:53] karen-1 and gee everyone got it wrong for 2,ooo yrs? I don't think so [00:53] Am I still on or did I lose my [00:53] Picked up the wrong phone. [00:53] anyhow judith you know my position. [00:53] He ordains His women with the spirit also [00:53] gee, cities for 5000 years and women vote for the last 150? [00:53] Not what I'm saying Acolyte. [00:53] I havw work to do thatI should have done long ago [00:53] everyone got it wrong [00:54] duster not in every culture [00:54] duster not possible [00:54] close enough [00:54] duster the Spirit leads the Church into ALL Truth, not error [00:54] but not all go at the same time [00:54] duster it is like arguing that the early church did not have bishops either [00:54] uh huh, that's why Paul had to dicuss circumcision with them [00:55] duster sure, I said the church, not parts of it [00:55] duster the whole church never delt with womens ordination till about the 4th century in one small circumstance [00:55] and that was because all the men got killed bythe Anglo's [00:56] anyhow I HAVE work to do [00:56] Acolyte - I have a question for you - distant but related. Is it OK for Christian women to wear gold jewelry? [00:56] aco, just a question...is this women's ordination on the level that circumcision was? [00:57] karen not to excess to the point that they appear as a prostitute which is what the related vv speak of [00:57] judith higher [00:57] and Judith is offensive to God because she's a woman, not because she's ungodly [00:57] So we don't take the Scripture literally ??? [00:57] #creation [00:57] How about braids? [00:57] they didn't believe Paul's call either [00:57] karen-1 sure, it is true in its intended context [00:57] they thought his ideas about circumcision would break the church [00:57] judith they did not believe James either, they killed him for it [00:58] judith it was the Jews, not the church who would not recieve [00:58] aco, that doesn't mean james was wrong [00:58] judith again, not the church [00:58] and it doesn't mean paul was wrong. [00:58] the church sent paul away [00:58] So braids and gold are OK today because it doesn't label the woman as a prostitute. [00:58] judith but the ppl who drove paul out were not the church [00:58] karen-1 to non-excess [00:58] the church in jerusalem sent him away [00:58] over circumcision [00:58] judith they did? where? [00:58] in what text? [00:59] IF it isn't OK for women to be preachers (I do not suffer a woman to teach men???) then at what age does that kick in? [00:59] galatians [00:59] judith the Jerusalem Council upheld Paul, who's dicesse was James, who presided at the Council. [00:59] 2:11ff [00:59] judith galations says he opposed Peter is all [00:59] NOt that the whole church drove himout [00:59] and peter was the head of the jerusalem church [01:00] judith who? Jews [01:00] Ebionites [01:00] Is it OK for women to teach college boys? How about High School? 3rd graders? Where does a male stop being a man and become subject to a woman's teaching? [01:00] no, jewish CHRISTIANS [01:00] and the JERUSALEM COUNCIL uphelp Paul [01:00] Ebionites [01:00] the jewish christians sided with paul [01:00] er..with peter [01:00] James and Paul opposed them in council [01:00] even barnabus did [01:00] for a time [01:01] an the coucnil decided [01:01] as James presided [01:01] it was HIS diocece [01:01] it was still their stance [01:01] i had a little old lady teach me for years [01:01] she was very wise [01:01] karen what does age have to do wit it? [01:01] and the whole reason for the letter to the galatians [01:01] judith it was some of them, not all [01:01] cause everyone knows women teach sunday school [01:02] judith, part of it, but Galatians is AFTER the JERUSALEM Council [01:02] Acolyte - if a woman can't teach men - at what age can she teach them? [01:02] karen-1 I don't understand th text that way [01:02] karen-1 neither does the church [01:02] If she can't teach men her own age, how much younger do they have to be? [01:02] the teaching still prevailed. [01:02] it had infiltrated the galatian church [01:02] judith so? the Council spoke, the COUNCIL decided, not individuals [01:03] Obviously the church doesn't understand it that way. It would mean that to be consistent, MEN would have to teach sunday school. [01:03] the council was the model fo the NT Church, NOT indidvidual visions [01:03] karen-1 yeah so? [01:03] and it seemed that paul's TESTIMONY was plenty evidence for his calling wherever he went [01:03] judith then why go get approved by Peter? [01:03] judith why sit under the other apostles for yrs? [01:03] and why look for Acolyte's approval? [01:03] So if women can "preach" to little boys, why not to men? [01:04] he even says he has their approval [01:04] he didnt' consult any man [01:04] 3 years after he began [01:04] karen-1 what is preaching? [01:04] judith then what did he do [01:04] yes and then what? [01:04] Preaching - Or teaching. [01:04] karen-1 anyone can preach on the Priests approval. Old Chruch Tradition [01:05] karen preaching adn teachng are NOT the same [01:05] he went back to doing his stuff for another 14 years [01:05] brb [01:05] anyhow I got work to do [01:05] judith I wait for your sign [01:05] Good! Now, consider church government. In a denomination where the pastor is a SERVANT of the Church, the pastor is UNDER the authority of the Elders. [01:05] only a heathen age seeks a sign [01:05] and i remind you that God is not a trained dog [01:06] and it is not my sign you await. [01:07] I gotta go too. Bed time. <<<>>> [01:07] #creation [01:07] karen-1 (ajanssen@irv-ca16-22.ix.netcom.com) left #apologetics. [01:07] Judith, my old mom would accept you completely [01:08] yours and mine duster ;) [01:08] and i would too if you spoke the word of God [01:08] `i don't? [01:08] well i haven't heard you preach yet [01:09] i think you probably will [01:09] heh...i do it all the time on here...just "interactively" [01:09] then pray this week please [01:09] yeah, it's ok if women sing sermons, but if they slow down, it offends God [01:09] for confirmation and submission [01:10] yes Judith, i will [01:10] thank you. [01:13] that is the verse i was given at my confirmation. [01:13] a two edged sword indeed [01:14] stand fast in the Lord Judith [01:14] aco, i understand your position. and i realize that our friendship has come to an end. [01:14] however, be prepared to be wrong, as that may be the case. [01:15] dito [01:15] you calling her disorderly, is she? [01:15] yup [01:15] no duster, i'm not only disorderly, i'm the cause of all divisions in the church, personally [01:15] and if i am mistaken about my call, then my entire faith and salvation is lost. [01:16] no, just your theology [01:16] my theology includes that [01:16] but if i am right...what then of yours? [01:16] your theology can change [01:16] sure [01:16] are you willing to be wrong? [01:16] so can yours [01:16] if I get toasted [01:16] i don't believe you. [01:16] why not? [01:17] you have made your skepticism and self righteousness plain tonight [01:17] judith Ihave beenvery honest with you. Don't push it [01:17] judith I have gone out of my way to apologize o youas well [01:17] you have been honest yes. but you have also been insulting. it hurts when i don't bleieve you doesn't it? [01:18] now try to imagine the pain you have caused me tonight. but i do appreciate your honesty. [01:19] blessings aco. [01:19] Judith (Sandra@dial091.skypoint.net) left #apologetics. [ref002]Return to #apologetics Home Page [ref003]Return to LOGS Page [ref004]Go to the MCU Virtual Library [ref001] http://mcu.edu/library/logs/log_3_3_96.html [ref002] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/apologetics.html [ref003] http://www.fiu.edu/~wgreen01/logs.html [ref004] ../


E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank