Losing my religion for equality

I believe you're right when you say everyone is accountable for his or her own sins and decisions. The leader of the home doesn't automatically assume all of the blame, leaving all others blameless. He shares the blame and responsibility, because one of his responsibilities is to minister to his own family. If he doesn't, and they don't know God, that's partially on him. Make sense?

I don't believe any of that for an instant. Does that mean I'm not a strong believer of the Bible? I would argue that those who do agree with that may be believers, but they're not very knowledgeable about the Bible.

Not lower, just different. There's a difference.

Now this, sadly, I agree with. Not universally, but in far too many cases.

 

You are right about the quote from melonhead. I miss read it when I responded Sorry I have been babysitting a newborn all day yesterday and today so I am just a tad bit tired.

 

How do you define "accept"?

 

Good question. I honestly don't know. That's the sort of thing I label as being up to God, because only He knows for sure what's going on in that particular relationship.

The entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 12 provides a great explanation of how this works (imho), but for the sake of brevity, i'll post a passage that gets to the heart of the question:

Jesus set up the church intentionally to make us dependent on one another. There are no insigificant gifts or roles in the church. All are needed. Pastoring is a gift (also called shepherding). Teaching is a gift. Leadership, administration, healing, spiritual discernment, worship, etc. are too. I've known women who have strong shepherding gifts, and I've known men who don't (I'm one of them).

I agree with my church's policy on the matter, that women may serve anywhere they're gifted. They only exception is the position of head pastor, and the reason for that exception is this verse:

"Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God." --1 Corinthians 11:3

The explanation Paul gives for that verse is found in verses 8-9 of the same chapter, which refers back to the creation of mankind in Genesis 2. His argument is that man was created first, in the image of God, and woman was created from man to be a companion for him. But as chauvanist as that seems, he is also quick to say in verse 12 that man is not independent of woman -- they are dependent upon each other and both are dependent on God.

 

How do you square this perception you have on the one hand with your conservative brethren who overly stress individuality? Jesus sounds like a socialist liberal and he would certainly get called that by the people sitting next to you in your church if he were saying this today.

You know it is true. How do you logically resolve this dichotomy in your mind and still consider yourself consistent?

 

No, Jesus was not a socialist. If he were socialist he would have advocated governmental ownership and distribution. That is not giving as Jesus often spoke of. One accepted implication in the story of the widow's mite is Jesus' criticism of a system requiring such giving, i.e. socialism.
Since giving has been shown to be greater among those who CHOOSE to give, and since Jesus' discussions were mostly around the motivation, I'd say Jesus would be a very generous conservative.

 

You are using Marx-era terminolgy for concepts that didn't even exist at that time. The Roman "governors" did in fact "own" most moneymaking activities in the region.

Tell me this story.

You conservatives keep saying this though I have yet to see anything displaying its actual veracity.

In many ways, exactly like you, correct? Interesting how humans consistently do that in their various religions.

 

Actually in Judea and other Jewish heavy provinces, the temple owned most of them. And the point is pretty clear regardless of terminology; Jesus would have abhorred any system of forced "giving" as it is the motive which matters to him. By any name you call it, socialists rely on government distribution.

I'm pretty sure you know it already.

Factual data has been posted time and time again....your unwillingness to accept the facts......well, isn't surprising.

No absolutely not like me.......as I often point out, I'm not a good Christian and I often stray

 

I didn't realize I was talking about any form of "forced" giving. What would you call a philosophical system (not necessarily a political system) that was the semi-opposite of the Ayn Rand Objectivism of individuality? In other words, rather than glorify the Superman of certain conservative people's fantasies, the emphasis would be on freedom at the top and a safety net at the bottom for the vast vast majority of actual humans who don't fit the John Galt criteria.

And why do you do that?

 

Not sure I understand the question.

I guess you could look at it that way. But would socialism really exist in a theocracy?

My goal is to remain consistent with Him, not my "conservative brethren". I'm a registered Republican who voted for Obama. I'm a dedicated Christian who voted no on Prop 8 (and took a fair amount of heat for it, too). Political conservatism really doesn't mean much to me. I try to focus on Jesus and let the chips fall where they may. Sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm not. My hope is that I'll be more right than wrong, and that I'll improve as I learn and grow.