40% of Gen Zs and 30% of young Christians identify as LGBTQ, poll shows

[Elipe]

Interestingly enough, if it is a Pauline REFUTATION of 'universal silence' (as my argument above attempts to show is the best understanding of the text), then it ALSO will function as strong data we can use in our analysis of I Tim 2(!)...In other words, our understanding of I Tim 2 will need to take into consideration that Paul probably DISAGREEs with the position of women's silence--even from teaching and prophesying (e.g 14.26 and 11.5)--in the church!

How is it possible for those people to reach whole new levels of delusion and clown? This person's arguments are not supported by the evidence, and this person seems to be making things up out of thin air as "evidence". The grammatical structure of 14:26-40 does not support the idea that 14:34-35 are quotations from Corinthian men. Also, 14:36 addresses 14:26-35 in entirety, as Paul is writing here to challenge the way the Corinthians were worshiping in such a way that every member was laying special claim to spiritual gifts.

In a nutshell, Paul's complaint about the Corinthians was that they were sort of playing a game of one-upmanship over spiritual gifts, and 14:36 is a refutation of the idea that each of these Corinthians had some kind of special VIP access to God that put them above each other or above even the apostles to whom the Gospel originally came.

The notion that Paul was some kind of male feminist getting angsty at the Corinthians over their treatment of women is idiotic beyond belief, and mis-attributing 14:36 to this kind of male feminist monologuing is not only stupid, it is straight up evil.

And the second part of the post I quoted above, about 1 Tim 2, is also just clownish on a whole another level. Like I said, inverting a "no" into a "no, except under conditions that are pretty much universal, so is as good as yes".

To use a male feminist expression, this person clearly does not understand that "no" means "no".

 

[infowarrior1]

How is it possible for those people to reach whole new levels of delusion and clown? This person's arguments are not supported by the evidence, and this person seems to be making things up out of thin air as "evidence". The grammatical structure of 14:26-40 does not support the idea that 14:34-35 are quotations from Corinthian men. Also, 14:36 addresses 14:26-35 in entirety, as Paul is writing here to challenge the way the Corinthians were worshiping in such a way that every member was laying special claim to spiritual gifts.

In a nutshell, Paul's complaint about the Corinthians was that they were sort of playing a game of one-upmanship over spiritual gifts, and 14:36 is a refutation of the idea that each of these Corinthians had some kind of special VIP access to God that put them above each other or above even the apostles to whom the Gospel originally came.

The notion that Paul was some kind of male feminist getting angsty at the Corinthians over their treatment of women is idiotic beyond belief, and mis-attributing 14:36 to this kind of male feminist monologuing is not only stupid, it is straight up evil.

And the second part of the post I quoted above, about 1 Tim 2, is also just clownish on a whole another level. Like I said, inverting a "no" into a "no, except under conditions that are pretty much universal, so is as good as yes".

To use a male feminist expression, this person clearly does not understand that "no" means "no".

He is definitely sourcing his argument from dubious heretic scholars and dubious literature as is shown:

Suggested reading on the home page for this section:

• Feminism and the Bible, Mardi Keyes, IVP: 1995. [This small booklet is the best thing I have read on this subject! Outstanding work...I recommend it to all thoughtful folk.]
  
• Apology to Women: Christian Images of the Female Sex, Ann Brown,IVP: 1991. (The best book I have seen on this subject.)
  
• Woman in the Bible by Mary J. Evans, IVP:1983.
  
• A Dictionary of Women in Church History, Mary L. Hammack, Moody:1984. [Incredible book--lists snapshot bios of outstanding extra-biblical women, by period: Ancient Church History (ad 33-590, 47 entries), Medieval (ad 590-1500, 50 entries), Reformation (ad 1500-1650, 70 entries), Expansion and Denominationalism (ad 1650-1800, 80 entries), Revivals, Missions, Further Expansion (ad 1800-present, 580 entries).]
  
• Essays on Women in Earliest Christianity, volume 1, Carroll Osburn (eds), College Press: 1993.

https://www.christian-thinktank.com/femalex.html

What is weird is that he is Orthodox for everything else aside from this topic. As far as I can ascertain so far.

But then again heresies in regards to what is Morality is a very good indicator of the lack of evidence of Salvation. Especially when it remains unrepented of.

And the second part of the post I quoted above, about 1 Tim 2, is also just clownish on a whole another level. Like I said, inverting a "no" into a "no, except under conditions that are pretty much universal, so is as good as yes".

And the NIV 2011 modifications to the Biblical Text in stark contradiction to actual manuscripts and Gender Neutralizing everywhere in the Biblical Text when inconvenient to the Egalitarian Agenda actually translates this passage to open the way to Women in the Priesthood/Eldership:

1984 NIV 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a
man; she must be silent.

2011 NIV 1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a
man; she must be quiet. (same as TNIV, but with modified footnotes)

Evangelical feminists will love this translation because in one stroke it removes the Bible‘s main
barrier to women pastors and elders. As soon as a church adopts the 2011 NIV, the debate over
women‘s roles in that church will be over, because women pastors and elders can just say, ―I‘m
not assuming authority on my own initiative; it was given to me by the other pastors and elders.‖
Therefore any woman could be a pastor or elder so long as she does not take it upon herself to
―assume authority.‖

The NIV‘s translation committee says that the translation ―assume authority‖ is ―a particularly
nice English rendering because it leaves the question open.‖ In other words, ―assume authority‖
could be understood in two different ways: a negative way (meaning ―wrongly assume authority
on one‘s own initiative‖) or a positive way (meaning ―begin to use authority in a rightful way‖).
But in saying this the NIV translators fail to understand the full force of what they have done:
They have given legitimacy to a feminist interpretation that did not have legitimacy from any
other modern English translation (except the discontinued TNIV).

 

[Elipe]

What's also especially weird about this notion that Paul was a male feminist is how Paul, when he was Saul, treated Christians. The man killed many Christians and dragged them off to be stoned. So it's not like Paul had this sensitive modernist outlook on life before he converted. This was, to use a C.S. Lewis expression, a man with a chest. Paul's testosterone level would put probably 99% of men living today to shame. He was a man of a Pharisaic and Roman background, two backgrounds that clearly were not feminist in their outlook (remember the woman being dragged before Jesus to be stoned for adultery?).

So you would have to basically argue that Paul became a feminist when he converted, and to do that you would have to show that feminism is Christian doctrine. You can't, though. That's why they have to play all these stupid word salad games with Scripture to convince you that feminism is Christian.

Paul would basically have to go from this:

To this:

Bit of humor there, but you just don't see this whiny male feminist crap in the tone of Paul's writing.

 

[Foresight]

To add to the current discourse on seemingly benign Biblical scholars leading the flock astray.

Why Michal Rightly Despised David

2 Samuel 6:16 As the ark of the Holy God came into the city of David, Michal bat Saul looked out of the window, and saw King David leaping and dancing before the Holy God; and she despised him…

www.wilgafney.com

 

[infowarrior1]

What's also especially weird about this notion that Paul was a male feminist is how Paul, when he was Saul, treated Christians. The man killed many Christians and dragged them off to be stoned. So it's not like Paul had this sensitive modernist outlook on life before he converted. This was, to use a C.S. Lewis expression, a man with a chest. Paul's testosterone level would put probably 99% of men living today to shame. He was a man of a Pharisaic and Roman background, two backgrounds that clearly were not feminist in their outlook (remember the woman being dragged before Jesus to be stoned for adultery?).

So you would have to basically argue that Paul became a feminist when he converted, and to do that you would have to show that feminism is Christian doctrine. You can't, though. That's why they have to play all these stupid word salad games with Scripture to convince you that feminism is Christian.

Paul would basically have to go from this:

To this:

Bit of humor there, but you just don't see this whiny male feminist crap in the tone of Paul's writing.

Can you imagine those same types of people trying to reinterpret or edit Church Tradition(Canon Law, Church Fathers, Magisterium and so on). To always be the Soyboi slop all along? Rather than what they actually believed said and practiced?

This is what it feels like with the NIV 2011 feminist translation and those (((Scholars))). We need to pray that those heretics are stopped from skinsuiting every last Traditional Church left like in the RCC and EO as much as the remnants of the Protestant Churches that adhere most closely to Church Tradition.

 

[infowarrior1]

To add to the current discourse on seemingly benign Biblical scholars leading the flock astray.

Why Michal Rightly Despised David

2 Samuel 6:16 As the ark of the Holy God came into the city of David, Michal bat Saul looked out of the window, and saw King David leaping and dancing before the Holy God; and she despised him…

www.wilgafney.com

Everyone supporting this person or endorses him. Is a heretic.

 

[Going strong]

I wonder how many of these people know the life expectancy for sexually active gays, or how much gays spend on adult diapers?

I don't know the "life expectancy of active gays", but it's too long.

 

[Foresight]

Everyone supporting this person or endorses him. Is a heretic.

So, I'm involved in a translation software project targeted at increasing access to Asian indigenous Christian cultures and as I was researching more insight into the Samuel text, I came across this insidious little gem right on the first page regarding Michal's behaviour towards David when he was bringing the Ark into his city.
Checked out the author' s other writings and they parrot the same subversive but cosmetically benign philosophy. That title of a PhD holding reverend ( author is a she) giving her assumed authority to the non critical thinkers.
Basically riding on the veneer of a Christian looking foundation but subverting to her radical feminist ideals where she sees fit.

 

[Lawrence87]

I don't think people who struggle with sexual sins should be shunned and told they cannot come to church, but they should be given help to refrain from their sin. I include all heterosexual people who struggle with lust in that too...

To actively promote it, and ally oneself with the LGBT agenda as a church is shameful, and cannot be squared with Christian morality.

 

[infowarrior1]

I don't think people who struggle with sexual sins should be shunned and told they cannot come to church, but they should be given help to refrain from their sin. I include all heterosexual people who struggle with lust in that too...

To actively promote it, and ally oneself with the LGBT agenda as a church is shameful, and cannot be squared with Christian morality.

Temptation to sin is nothing to be proud of.

 

[infowarrior1]

So, I'm involved in a translation software project targeted at increasing access to Asian indigenous Christian cultures and as I was researching more insight into the Samuel text, I came across this insidious little gem right on the first page regarding Michal's behaviour towards David when he was bringing the Ark into his city.
Checked out the author' s other writings and they parrot the same subversive but cosmetically benign philosophy. That title of a PhD holding reverend ( author is a she) giving her assumed authority to the non critical thinkers.
Basically riding on the veneer of a Christian looking foundation but subverting to her radical feminist ideals where she sees fit.

Those people are intent on subverting Traditional Christianity wherever they find them anywhere in the world. Even riding the coattails of the True Gospel to peddle their heresies.

 

[Foresight]

Those people are intent on subverting Traditional Christianity wherever they find them anywhere in the world. Even riding the coattails of the True Gospel to peddle their heresies.

Literal chill ran up my spine reading her writing yesterday.
Beautifully designed website too. She has entire comment sections either fawning over her or filled with her testy responses when anyone, even women question her ' wisdom'.
She has that kindly visage of the old wise black woman common in mainstream media.

I needed to be sure of my own discernment to her true nature though, hence forcing myself to read a bit more of her writing.
And, that was it. Had to sound the alarm.

 

[infowarrior1]

Literal chill ran up my spine reading her writing yesterday.
Beautifully designed website too. She has entire comment sections either fawning over her or filled with her testy responses when anyone, even women question her ' wisdom'.
She has that kindly visage of the old wise black woman common in mainstream media.

I needed to be sure of my own discernment to her true nature though, hence forcing myself to read a bit more of her writing.
And, that was it. Had to sound the alarm.

Pray. Pray constantly. May the Holy Spirit guard you from deception and lies. And may God give her what she deserves should she continue in this wickedness and not repent. Causing all her works to burn up and be destroyed.

 

[infowarrior1]

I don't know the "life expectancy of active gays", but it's too long.

Perhaps they perish before they even had to wear diapers if they are old enough.