The American usage of "dame" is a little different from that used in Her Majesty's Dominions. In Oz they usually think of Dame Edna, the finest flower of Moonie Ponds womanhood. Not the best example, but, well, you know what Aussies are like... In New Zealand (alias Godzone) we think of Dame Kiri Te Kanawa. Dame is the equivalent of "Sir", a title bestowed upon worthy individuals in the days before we colonials got stroppy and abolished such gongs.
In this honorific sense, Debby Bailey is quite a dame. Chosen not by Mrs Windsor, but by President-for-life Joe. For some people that invalidates her calling, but others are happy to acknowledge that her ministry is genuine, and a rare positive development in a negative sect. It may be shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic, but there's no doubting the bravery of those band members who played on in an attempt to keep panic at bay.
PTM (i.e. Greg Albrecht) has unleashed an article on women's ministry - quite coincidently no doubt (!) - in the latest Plain Truth. Evangelical author Doug Trouten has a dollar each way, hardly a ringing endorsement of WCG's new practice. Trouten calls the misogynists "Complementarians" and those that recognise women's ministries "Egalitarians." There's a list of books for further reading, all of which are sourced from conservative, agenda-driven publishers ("can any good thing come out of Multnomah?") Well, I suppose we should at least be grateful he didn't recommend something from the Missouri Synod...
Meanwhile high pitched shrieking has been heard on a couple of the more Herbolatrous discussion groups.
Left wing WCG's first female elder: The Leninists and Marxists are clapping their hands. (Elijahforum... Elijah being SuperHerb I guess)
What is just as interesting is that, despite such examples of bilious invective, most folk seem reasonably relaxed about WCG's move, even those among the Sabbatarian splinters. Maybe we should give some credit to the person in the picture, the best woman minister the COGs never had, Pam Dewey. Pam is a popular speaker, loyal COG member, website creator and published author. More than that, despite never being ordained as an elder (husband George has that distinction) Pam is a fine role model for confident women's ministry, a truly remarkable person and, in the best British sense of the word, COGdom's leading Dame. If Debby can do half as well she'll be an outstanding pastor.
38 comments:
Just because someone does not agree with women in the ministry makes them women haters. But the use of the word for that is really a disgusting practice. Think about the word you used for woman hater, hating her body part...come on.
Huh? You gotta quit smokin' that stuff! Even Rod Meredith uses a quote that uses the word "misogynistic" in his Jan/Feb TW editorial. Nothing disgusting about it... check a dictionary.
Ah, c'mon, Gavin! Kaneh Bosm, as it was known in ancient Hebrew, was probably responsible for all of the supernatural occurrences in the entire OT! It was regularly used in the ceremonies of the temple. If it was good enough for the priests and prophets to smoke, it should be good enough for "anonymous!"
If female leadership is so left-wing, how do the COG's explain Margaret Thatcher?
--rlb
It's funny how Pam Dewey is more popular with those outside the cogs and the anti establishment fringe than she is with those within it. Her impact is 0 as 90% of attendees have never heard of her and she is relegated to the fringer sideshow. In over 40 years I have never heard a single mention of her by anyone who actually attends a cog
Dear Anonymous: Then you have never heard of Jim O'Brien's group. Pam Dewey has been there, and has spoken to them.
Like I said, the fringe disaffected crowd of the cog movement.
I'm sure both of those attending enjoyed her presentation.
Pam has also been very involved in CEM activities and played a large part in their Feast of Tabernacles. And has literally spoken many places ... not all of them being sabbath keeping groups ...
A reference to Pam's work may be found in
Answers with material from her presentation on The Matrix.
To the anonymous poster who stated that Pam Dewey is virtually unknown in COGdom: I wouldn't be using that fact as criteria for much of anything at all. Most of the people I ever encountered in the WCG were some of the most willfully ignorant people on the face of the earth. Blinders were mandatory facewear, and any reading time was spent on the KJV Bible, the church's literature, and a smidgeon of time filtering "world news" through British Israelism/Revelation.
If one happened to bring up the topic of archaeology, a typical member would recite his "Piltdown Man" programming. If one wanted to discuss politics, one often heard, "Well, Mr. Armstrong feels that so and so would be the better man to lead the country."
So, the fact that people within the ACOGs do not know about an intelligent, articulate woman such as Pam Dewey really says more about the ACOG mentality than it does about Pam. Pam has visited Worldwide Church of God Alumni Forum from time to time, and her every visit there has been both informative and pleasant. Even some of our resident iconoclasts have warmed up to her!
BB
I'm curious if attendance is lower in churches that regularly have women speakers. Do less men show up to these churches when a women is scheduled to speak? I'm guessing - yes. If so, does that help or hinder the gospel? Look, right or wrong, most men don't want to be lectured by a woman for over an hour on ANY topic. That's just how we are.
I think at some level most men either consciously or subconsciously, view women in leadership roles as an affront to their masculinity. The male species by nature assumes the dominate role on this planet.
Am I saying men are naturally better leaders? certainly not. Some women make much better leaders than some men. But do men and women have innate roles or not? If the answer is yes, then why try so hard to deny the obvious?
I realize this is uncomfortable to mention, and I apologize for any offense, but isn't that what we are really talking about here?
or ex wives
A question for Byker Bob or anyone else who cares to comment.
Just curious, what do you think about the COG teachings on the gap theory?
"Just curious, what do you think about the COG teachings on the gap theory?"
It is really a theological guess without enough evidence to form an hypothesis much less a theory. But, since when has religion been scientific? It's all based on what a person is gullible enough to believe.
Wanting something to be true bad enough will make it true in a person's mind but not in reality.
Remember, going by the bible, it was a "fact" that the earth was flat and it was blasphemy to say otherwise.
The christian church used to think that stone arrow heads discovered in various places were left there by demons.
Funny why they didn't know about them being made by their own ancestors. The stone-age had been entirely forgotten and the bible starts out with working in metal (Gen.4:22).
So, the ones who wrote Genesis didn't remember the stone-age either. There's gap alright, and it's between people's ears.
Assuming that the disciplined folks who comment on this blog don't stray off the topic, the gap theory question must relate to the gap between men and women, no? There is indeed such a gap, but with Valentine's Day (St. Valentine's Day for Jared, even if St. Val's been demoted in recent times) fast approaching, all you misogynists out there have an opportunity to make amends and narrow the gap. Time to stand in the gap, if you will, and show the ladies your love and respect -- let them know that patriarchalism and paternalism are preterit and passé. As they should be. But true love -- agape -- never is.
CGI has had a woman speak at the Feast.....Noni McVey.
a very nice woman indeed, and hard working when it comes to the youth and programs for them...
but she is totally out of place speaking in front of the congregation like that.....
her "presentations" were billed as just that, a presentation about the youth programs, but she has used more scripture than a minister giving a sermon....so basically she was giving a sermonette...
maybe that's one reason CGI is a dying organization.
Pam Dewey is the greatest!
Put it on your bumber sticker...
PAM FOR POPE!
lussenheide
My opinion of the gap theory is that it is one of many attempts that man makes to preserve the credibility of the Bible. Theologians, and many church goers are of the opinion that the Bible is from God, and science (particularly Biology) is of Satan the Devil.
However, it's not as if scientists are running around attempting to prove that there is no God. They are simply trying to follow an evidentiary trail, examining the earth from many perspectives. Their efforts are devoted to determining the age of the earth, the various processes which have made the earth what it is today, and to obtain an idea of where it all might be going in the future. In most cases, scientists do not allow themselves to be prejudiced by, or guided by the Bible. You might say they are simply conducting an independent investigation, with the Bible being largely irrelevant to the process.
I don't know whether you ever watch the NOVA series on PBS, but doing so would be a very interesting and enlightening experience. I watch this program whenever possible, and have learned much from the programs concerning our planet. The earth is billions of years old. It required billions of years for the surface to cool enough just so that it could support life. The processes which made the earth what it is today are actually measurable by geologists.
There have also been ice ages, again totally documented by climatologists. Some species of animals were obliterated by these, the Wooly Mammoth being a case in point. I remember being told in WCG services that a catastrophy so great and sudden happened that these great animals were frozen solid with food still in their mouths. This is not true. There have not been all that many Mammoths discovered, but the ones which were, when carefully defrosted, had the abominable stench of rotting flesh. They had obviously decomposed prior to being frozen.
Geologists have not uncovered any compelling evidence of one global flood, let alone the additional one required to support gap creation theory. Tohu and Bohu, to me, would mean that there would have been such total destruction that no Neanderthal fossils could have been preserved, and certainly no inscriptions could have survived on cave walls, engraved by our Neanderthal ancestors.
Time and space do not permit lengthy dissertation, but radio carbon dating, based on certain isotopes which bombard the earth and are absorbed by all living things has been highly refined and is much more accurate than we present and former Armstrongites were led to believe.
There is also genetic evidence that Neanderthal intermarried with and was absorbed by modern man. I'm not totally informed on the science which has accomplished this, but apparently testable dna was present in some fossil remains, and it was found that certain tribes in Africa have some of the Neanderthal genetic markers.
I'm not familiar with the total history of gap theory creationsism, but I suspect that it probably came into play at about the same time that science became developed to the point of being credible in it's estimates of the age of the earth. There is no evidence, scientific or Biblical, to support this theory. It is all conjecture, and requires reading things into the spaces between the lines.
BB
Not to disagree with Byker Bob, since his point about the gradual nature of climate change is valid, however, the following statement is in error: ‘There have not been all that many Mammoths discovered, but the ones which were, when carefully defrosted, had the abominable stench of rotting flesh. They had obviously decomposed prior to being frozen.’
Mammoths and Beardogs are amongst the most common mammal fossil finds and flash frozen intact corpses have been found. Ditto Dire Wolves. That does NOT mean that they were part of some global calamity, however. I am sad to say that it seems many of the animals in question had rather steep learning curves, as anyone who has visited the tar pits in California will silently conclude.
Prehistoric mammals were a pretty dumb lot, and thanks to that, we have found them in all matter of states and situations.
--Mark ‘Let me bore you with my Natural History of Prehistoric Mammals knowledge’ Lax
the gap theory introduces a fundamental problem: if the present world began with a recreation of the earth surface beginning with Genesis 1:3, and beginning six thousand years ago, there remains one Adam who was created before there was vegetation, and created on the sixth day of this recreation week, thereby retaining the irreconcilability between the two creation accounts. Or perhaps, there were many “adams” that survived the destruction that came upon the earth’s surface—and the possibility of many adams allows for fossils of great antiquity, and genetic diversity, and for Christian racism, the ugliest stain yet upon tarnished Christendom.
One Adam or many? One creation or two? Choice seems simple. However, any choice made retains the paradox that undoes the gap theory: Was the Adam created before there was vegetation the Adam about whom the Apostle Paul said was a type of Christ Jesus (cf. Rom 5:14; 1 Cor 15:45, 47)? Or was the man created on the sixth day of a recreation of the earth the Adam with whom Paul compared Jesus? They cannot be the same Adam.
Christian racists adopted the gap theory to explain “mud people” (people of color) and Jews, whose father, Jesus said, was Satan[3], as physically and spiritually inferior human beings, over whom the “white Aryan” sons of Adam should have perpetual dominance. These racists in both their “civilized” congregations and in their radical, skinhead rallies place importance on the flesh; i.e., the tents of flesh in which born-of-Spirit sons of God temporarily dwell. These Christian racists tend to gravitate to the Christian Identity Movement (CIM), the modern counterparts to the errant 1st-Century Circumcision Faction, for their spiritual understanding is confined to the flesh.
A somewhat respectable concept within Christian racism manifests itself in most denominations: Christian sexism. If a born-from-above son of God dwells in a tent of flesh and is neither male nor female, Jew nor Greek, free nor slave (Gal 3:28), the disciple is no more the tent of flesh than an in-the-flesh circumcised Israelite is the house in which he dwelt while in Egyptian slavery. Christian sexists and Christian racists are as wrong as is the gap theory, which, unfortunately, like sexism and racism, has also been accepted by the Sabbatarian Churches of God.
The so-called gap theory does not reconcile the two creation accounts, but requires dismissal of some portion of Genesis chapter one. Therefore, laying skepticism aside, the irreconcilable conflict between the “J” and the “P” creation accounts occurs largely from the poetic naming of “what is,” and of what is created. And here wisdom is required—
· Poetic conceits do not require a thing (a linguistic object or linguistic signified) to be named with any particular sound or symbol (linguistic icon or signifier).
· Movement within a poetic conceit can be in any direction or directions;
· Movement within a lacunae will be radical, and equivalent to a stanza break;
· When movement in a conceit is first vertical or heavenward (Gen 1:2), followed by horizontal or additional upward movement, the linguistic icons or signifiers [words] used to convey this second tier of movement must continue to be familiar to auditors [the audience];
· But because the conceit has first movement vertically, the linguistic icons or signifiers used to show additional movement cannot have the same objects or signifieds [meanings] within the conceit as would be commonly assigned in the natural world.
· Therefore, the linguistic trace or element of Thirdness that connects icons to objects or signifiers with signifieds functions to conceal rather than reveal knowledge; for this trace or element of Thirdness will cause auditors to, say, think of “trees” as trees, not as some living entities in the heavenly realm. In fact, all “literalness” has been removed from the poetic discourse.
http://portaustinbiblecenter.com/sukkot4.html
I think you misinterpret disinterest, or a sort of head shaking, "what will they come up with next" attitude amongst the COGs regarding the WCG's recent change as a "relaxed" approach. No one I know in the COGs, including women, regards the WCG's latest scriptural interpretation as anything other than just one more oddity coming out of the wreckage of what once was.
If a tree falls in a forest with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? If doctrinal change 546 is published from "HQ", but no one is left to receive it, does it matter?
"If a tree falls in a forest with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?"
This, like so many other topics discussed on this blog, ( gap theory, God in or outside of time etc etc etc), is all a matter of definition. Common sense also comes into it, and also the individuals inclination to argue for the sake of argument or not.
If a tree falls, it matters not one iota if there is anyone to hear it or not, the vibrations will be in the air, so anyone COULD hear it. Does the fact no one was there to translate the waves into sound mean there was no sound? Does an animal being there count? If a mouse was there and its ears translated it into sounds in its little mouse brain, will that count?
If a deaf man is nearby will that count, or how about if a person who can hear is there, but is concentrating on some other task, his ears may register the sound but his mind not perceive it – would that count? It all depends on definition.
Plain common sense tells me the tree falling sets up conditions so that a sound could be heard if the right equipment (human ear, mouse ear, microphone or.. you choose) was there. This means effectively a sound has been made, and I don’t have to search the environment to check if there was anything to pick up the sound, to know a sound has been made.
Incidentally, exactly how many angels was it we decided could stand on the head of a pin?
The account of creation in Genesis seems to always be criticized as something that is unscientific. But the Bible makes no claims that it is scientific. It is instead a miraculous, supernatural event. As such, we may not find record of it in geological strata, etc.
For instance, we know for a fact that the Ark was unseaworthy. Engineers have verified that a wooden ship of that size would be beaten to pieces very quickly by the actions of ocean waves. So how did the Ark hang together? We can spend hours debating this and exploring the principles of engineering. But,the answer is simply that the Ark hung together because God wanted it to. It hung together through forces entirely outside the principles of physics and engineering.
Some would argue that this is a convenient Deus Ex Machina. But, like Albert Einstein said in regard to the universe, either it is all miraculous or none of it is. He believed it was all miraculous.
"If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?" The answer involves an excursion into human perception. But, in fact, does the world outside the mind even exist as an objective reality? Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't.
Who cares?
-- Neo
Dear iwannaknow:
The Gap theory, a hypothesis that places an immeasurable period of time between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 and a hypothesis that has considerable acceptance within the Christian community, incorporates the flaw of assigning great antiquity to the universe. This theory allows for biological evolution to occur without such evolution discrediting the Genesis creation account. It has become a Christian compromise position that has no textual basis and actually reveals a lack of spiritual discernment and a lack of understanding Hebraic poetry.
The flaw in Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory that would have natural selection, or survival of the fittest producing both micro and macro changes is a logical fallacy contained within the theory. Survival of the fittest only occurs after a biological change occurs. It cannot influence the production of the change. Thus, all changes occur only through random happenstance (or by its alternative, intelligent design). And in the process of random happenstance, genetic modification causes the loss of functionality within the life form unless the change is self-directed toward a specific goal. Very limited changes can occur and still allow functionality. Thus, all changes must occur without the help of adaptability, for adaptation comes in selecting which of many changes best suits the life form to survive. But the many changes result in the loss of functionality before the changes are completed unless the changes occur simultaneously. Therefore, natural selection cannot account for the production of increasingly complex taxonomy.
Although Darwinian evolution explains aspects of design that allows environmental adaptation within a species, it does not allow for increasing complexity even within unrestricted time. The obvious appearance of design doesn’t develop from randomness, especially when the randomness is restricted. The appearance of design imparts such a large amount of biological information that the improbability of the particular arrangement of base elements precludes its production through randomness. Hence, the improbability of life evolving from simple to complex whether restricted by great antiquity or by a young earth exceeds reasonableness and must be relegated to being a poor explanation of higher taxonomy.
The above leaves the Genesis creation account (Gen 1:1 through 2:3) as the principle alternative explanation for creation, and an explanation based upon intelligent design. As such, the account opens itself to critical scrutiny, for the account has vegetable matter ripening on the third day, ripening before the sun is created on the fourth day. The account itself suggests that its first three days are not twenty-four hour periods, but are periods of darkness and light uninfluenced by the physical creation of a solar system. The account seems more mythic than scientific. The account, however, is the poetic abstract for the design plan of a supra-dimensional life form that is commonly identified as the Most High deity, a plan that has one day as a thousand years (2 Pet 3:8) and a thousand years as a day.
Respectfully,
Anonymous
Two comments. One, the statement which I made regarding the mammoths is supported by several websites, which referenced reliable materials. Unfortunately, I did not print these out for my special notebook (have to draw the line somewhere!), and will need to spend some time finding said websites.
Secondly, where is it written that miraculous occurrences would not be reflected in the geological strata? I would think quite the opposite unless one believes that "Satan" tampered with these things to make it appear as if everything evolved. That last statement sounds preposterous, I know, but I have encountered some who have used such an argument to defend their faith.
PS, the ark in the Sumerian flood legend was even less sea-worthy! It was described as being box-shaped! Zecariah Sitchin, anyone?
BB
We don't know if that word in Genesis 1:1 was the word "was" or "became". We don't know what is meant by "tohu and bohu". We are at a considerable disadvantage here, if we try to construct anything beyond some general notions.
Tohu and Bohu could have covered the condition of this world up to the time Adam was created. And after the banishment from Eden, Tohu and Bohu could have enused again. Some of my days certainly seem tohuish and bohuish.
While I believe that Genesis 1 expresses the essence of God's creative act, I also believe it was couched in literary not scientific language. I think this account was intended to be enacted as theater, a play. Maybe ancient Hebrews put on the drama of the creation once in a while. Or maybe their kids did.
It was not intended to be an article for submission to Scientific American.
We know that there have been multiple catastrophes throughout the history of the earth -- some of them truly Biblical in proportions. There have been many ecosystems, flora and fauna. The spare languge of Genesis was never intended to encompass this. The account had a different point.
-- Neo
I have always heard that the size ratios of the ark, particularly the breadth to depth ratio 5:3 = 1.667 is approximately the same as that used by the ‘average’ cargo ship, and is considered about the best ratio for stability, which of course you would want on the ark.
I haven’t checked this one out – no doubt many others have, and will enlighten me.
Unfortunately,the ship's LOG,namely the ARK-IVES,remain with the ship on Mt Ararat,or should that be Judi Dagh?
Sennacherib is supposed to have visit the site of its resting, and retained a piece of its timbers as a souvenir.This is the PLANK some historians pursue,and the PITCH they maintain.
We are FLOODED today with opinions about Noah's deluge...who is right?Was it localised, was it WORLDWIDE ( nudge,wink,wink), or did it never happen?
If Noah's Ark was fictional, it truly was a MENAGERIE event.
All the best.
Jorgheinz
There was a special on the Discovery Channel within the last few months about engineering studies of the Ark. Nobody knows what Gopher wood is for sure, but they can make some very solid estimates from models. Even thought the Ark was just a floater, it still would have broken up as a result of the action of ocean waves within just a few minutes. A flexing action would have been established that would have quickly overwhelmed the strength of the materials.
Does this mean we go running, screaming into the night and all become atheists?
The Ark was held together by God and not by natural forces. God can use secondary causes or he can intervene directly. Whatever.
-- Neo
I'm not promoting agnosticism, or atheism, or attempting to undermine anyone's faith. Beliefs are a personal matter, and not necessarily governed by science or intellect.
At the same time, I'd be remiss if I didn't at least suggest that maybe the Bible is simply a collection of Jewish and Catholic campfire tales. If one were to consider the conditions which exist today, with no evidence of spiritual intervention in mankind's affairs, and extrapolate backwards to more primitive times, it is indeed possible that all of the spiritual stories are simply imaginary, and/or a function of simpler minds.
BB
Dennis wrote: "I find it incredulous (sic) that "God the Creator," the same God who is the author if fundamentalist "Intelligent Design" would take 120 years to slap together a junk barge that met no engineering specs of any kind because no matter how pathetic and slipshod the thought that went into it, or the design, "I, God, can still hold it together with Spirit Spit, if I have to, and actually I do because I flunked boatbuilding 101."
You have overlooked the fact that God was working through secondary causes, in this case Noah and his family. God is always holding together the things that we try to do and can't really.
Where exactly has "modern thinking and good science" gotten us?
I have spent a fair amount of time reading archaeology and have yet to find something that is a "show stopper" when it comes to the Bible account of Man. If anything, man's recent rise to civilization is evidence that there was a recent introduction of a new and advanced homonid. Pre-Adamic forms just never went anywhere. The High Cultures of Babylon and Egypt were not lineal descendants of the neolithic mud villages.
Some archaelogists recognize the discontinuity between the advanced cultures of the last few thousand years and what came before. Jeffry Goodman's "The Genesis Mystery" is a good example. (Goodman is not a Christian as far as I know and does not attempt directly to support the Biblical model.)
You're right. A woman getting ordained is not earth shaking.
-- Neo
Well, Neo, the quantum leap in human intelligence could have been spawned by man finally learning how to record his thoughts in written form, thus making accumulation possible. Logical, physical, and totally understandable without invoking an imaginary realm of ghostly beings.
The Old Testament Cannon is a product of Rabbinical Judaism. It was put together by the Rabbis that survived the destruction of Jerusalem. It dates back to somewhere after 130 CE.
The OT is really very NEW!
Prior to this time there was NO CLOSED CANNON. There was a very wide-ranging body of literature both Hebrew and Greek. Prior to this effort the very large body of literature that was recognized as scripture. Again there was no closed cannon, there were not a fixed grouping of books in the Jewish Tanakh.
The Rabbis who survived the destruction of Jerusalem did the work. This was a small minority of the Rabbi... most perished when Jerusalem was destroyed and later in the Bar Kochba revolt. The Rabbis who put together the OT cannon created a "closed cannon". The books they chose to include appear to have been chosen so as to "...protect their literary heritage in its classical form".
They played it safe. These folks were cautious by nature, they had watch millions in their nation die, virtually all of the political and religious leaders had been wiped out by the Romans.
The included only books written in Hebrew. That is why there are not OT books stop so far back. They excluded all of the newer books; those they felt were dangerous or those written in Greek. Essense, Sadducees, Pharasees and others believed this excluded literature was inspired by God, they believed it! They felt that God would at that time deliver Judah from the Romans and the nation of Judah would once again thrive. That is what much of this literature promised. Rather then answer the prayers of these folks, rather then confirm their beliefs were correct , God allowed the nation of Judah to be destroyed.
You can understand why the surviving Rabbis were afraid of much of their literature. It played a central roll in the destruction of theri nation.
The point of this that not all of what we have in the OT is inspired; it is most certainly it is not inspired word for word. These books are the cautious choices 0f frightened Rabbis. That is not how to choose a divinely inspired cannon.
The hard part is that: MUCH OF THE OT IS INSPIRED, Jesus said so. So a large part is inspired and a large part is not inspired.
So choose what you believe WISELY.
God has not made this easy.
To Gavin,
I really do not care if rod uses it, you know already he is a little less than considerate when using words. Besides, it is not women hating to not have women ordained, no way, no how.
"Besides, it is not women hating to not have women ordained, no way, no how."
Jesus never ordained anyone. The earliest sayings of Jesus speak of "disciples". No offices, no ordinations, women and men were equal to Jesus. In fact he seemed to prefer women. ( I do as well :)
That means it makes no sense to ordain women, because it makes not sense to ordain men.
The entire structure that many Church of God folk defend was created by good orthodox Christians. It was created to control people and to keep the common folk in their place; especially to keep women subservient.
God made men and women equal. Jesus reaffirmed and reestablished that among his disciples.
"Where exactly has "modern thinking and good science" gotten us?"
Thankfully, it has gotten us past superstion.
I should qualify that by saying 'for some, but not all'.
It amazes me that "good science" is seen as "bad" by those who...
well,...have a "True Believer's" agenda.
By the way, it's a gosh darn shame when science gets in the way of Armstrongite "True Believers" beliefs, that they will one day be among a group of elite who will some day "rule the world", LOL!
If a man spoke in a forest, and there was no woman to hear him, would he still be wrong?
Post a Comment