Lance wrote: > Am I to assume that YOU would be incapable, > ... of making a legitimate case FOR the maltreatment > of AT LEAST those three groups I mentioned by believers?
Yes, you should assume that. I could not in good conscience make a legitimate case that society in general grossly mistreated these three groups. I could point out problems and certain incidents, but when considering the whole story and all the facts, society was more pluralistic than what some modern revisionists portray them to be. Lance wrote: > Am I to assume that, over the course of the last 20 > centuries, believers have not, regularly and, over a > protracted period of time, treated other believers > in an ungodly/unbiblical manner? There is a semantic problem in answering this question. I use the word "believer" differently from the word "Christian." Some Christians did mistreat other Christians, such as the inquisition, etc. I do not consider this to be believer against believer. Believers walk in love, and so believers would not mistreat other believers. I believe that such mistreatment reveals that they really were not believers, but only appeared to be such. They were the proverbial "wolves in sheep's clothing." Sometimes a believer does make a mistake, but because he is commited to Jesus Christ and has God's Spirit operating in him, upon correction he repents. Those who do not repent, but keep up a regular and protracted abuse toward others, they do not serve the same Lord that I do. Lance wrote: > Should you actually say to the former 'yes Lance, > I'm incapable of doing so' and, as to the latter > 'no Lance, I as a believer never have, no member > of my immediate family ever has and, no group of > believers I know of ever has' then I shall do what > I can to demonstrate otherwise. I look forward to seeing what you will present as evidence. David Miller. ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> Sent: February 12, 2006 15:17 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. > Lance, the problem is that the 'woman bashing' that you read into it is > from > a false stereotype that has been programmed into your mind from this > present > world system. This mindset is actually a delusion, a deconstruction of > something real into something that is not real. It is the spirit of > Anti-Christ. This is the same problem I have preaching on campus about > homosexuality, or having a sign that says, "help prevent homosexuality." > With such a message of hope to help the homosexual, I am immediately > typecast into being a hatemonger and homophobe. Why? Because the bigotry > and false stereotype that has been programmed into the minds of others, > that > anybody who believes that homosexuality is immoral or preventable is > filled > with hate. > > Did you even read the context of Tertullian's message here? Please look > it > up. If you need me to do the homework for you and paste the text here or > provide a link, let me know. > > Please consider his context and his audience. He was speaking to > REBELLIOUS > women, whose heart it was to alter the Creator's work upon them, by dying > their hair yellow, and wearing black eyeliner, and foundation makeup, and > braiding the hair, and wearing jewelry and ornaments, fine clothes of > purple, etc. This is a GENDER issue. Men generally speaking are not > prone > to spending an inordinate amount of time trying to make themselves > attractive in this way. Why do the women do it and not the men? There > are > several explanations. Tertullian was giving his perspective, based in > Scripture, a passage from the book of Genesis which all seem to accept as > Scripture, and text from the book of Enoch, which Tertullian accepted as > Scripture but realized that not everybody did. In the context in which he > spoke this, I have no problem with him speaking a reproof to women in this > way, reminding them of Eve's sin and how their deception about this > wearing > of makeup is similar. He gave a historical backdrop, and his reason for > all > of this was not to suppress women, but to elevate them. He was > contrasting > the condemned and cursed condition and linking the wearing of makeup to > this > with the gospel believing liberated woman, who is promised the same > dignity > of men in the resurrection, a seat from which to judge the very angels > that > taught the women to wear makeup and do other things besides. Even if you > think his reasoning has problems, you should not misrepresent him as being > somebody who was mistreating women or as someone engaged in 'woman > bashing.' > The only way this idea has any way of flying is if it is lifted out of > context and misrepresented as you and Debbie have done by sharing these > quotes in the way that you did. I think you do this out of ignorance, but > the problem is that you are probably even ignorant of the fact that you do > it in ignorance. That is the problem with delusion. You don't know that > you are actually believing a lie. > > David Miller. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> > Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 8:21 AM > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. > > > IFO could read more than a little 'woman bashing' herein, David/Dean. I > don't believe that either of the two of you would as, IMO, you both adopt > a > more traditionalist understanding of the role of > men/women..husbands/wives. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> > Sent: February 12, 2006 08:05 > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. > > >> Thank you David for this. >> >> >>> [Original Message] >>> From: David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org> >>> Date: 2/11/2006 9:37:40 PM >>> Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Fem. God- Dave H. get bathing suit. >>> >>> Lance wrote: >>> > And do you not know that you are an Eve? >>> > The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives >>> > in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. >>> > You are the devil's gateway: you are the unsealer >>> > of that tree: you are the first deserter of the divine >>> > law: you are she who persuaded him whom the >>> > devil was not valiant enough to attack. You >>> > destroyed so easily God's image, man. On account >>> > of your desert - that is, death - even the Son of God >>> > had to die. ~ Tertullian, Second Century >>> >>> The context of this is from a paragraph about modesty in apparel >>> becoming >> to >>> women. The quote stops short in that some sentences later, he concludes >>> this train of thought by saying: >>> "Accordingly these things are all the baggage of woman in her condemned >> and >>> dead state, instituted as if to swell the pomp of her funeral." >>> >>> So he was not denigrating women here. He was establishing some >> historical >>> guidelines, expounding upon the judgment of God toward the woman which >> said, >>> "In pains and in anxieties dost thou bear (children), woman; and toward >>> thine husband (is) thy inclination, and he lords It over thee." >> Tertullian >>> quoted this passage just before the quote given by Debbie above. >> Tertullian >>> then goes on, based upon the writings of Enoch (which he holds to be >>> Scripture but recognizes that the Jews did not because they did not >>> think >>> such writings could survive the flood, but Tertullian believed Noah, >> Enoch's >>> great grandson, to have taken it with him in the ark), to argue that >> women >>> who wear mascara and jewelry and fine ornaments were taught this by the >>> angels that had sinned and come down and married women. He points out >> that >>> these same angels are the angels that we will judge, and if we will >>> judge >>> them, what is it that women have to do with these things they brought to >> us, >>> being consumed with putting on makeup on their face, or coloring their >> hair, >>> or wearing fine jewelry. He points out that these are things of the >> earth >>> and nothing that women of God ought to be concerned with. Then he >>> points >>> out that the promise of judging these angels also is given to women; >>> therefore, they ought not be involved with these things that were >>> dishonoring to the Creator. Tertullian writes: >>> >>> "For you too, (women as you are,) have the selfsame angelic nature >> promised >>> as your reward, the selfsame sex as men: the selfsame advancement to the >>> dignity of judging, does (the Lord) promise you." >>> >>> Such a statement is along the lines of there being no male or female in >> the >>> eyes of God. It is an empowering statement, that women will be made >> judges >>> of angels on an equal level with men, so the quote taken out of context >> to >>> make Tertullian look like a woman basher is erroneous. Debbie would be >> wise >>> to hear the end of his conversation. >>> >>> David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
