Jesus, Republicans & The Bible...seriously ?

I really have to do this again don't I ? Okay, let's get started point by point.

"Peaceful, Non-Violent, Radical, Revolutionary."

Yes, Jesus was peaceful BUT, Jesus was not 100% anti-violent. This is NOT to say that Jesus went around preaching violence, HOWEVER John 2:14-25, Jesus drove heathens out of the Temple. Now, how exactly did Jesus do this? He used a WHIP! It's right there in The Bible, check it out. Jesus attacked them with a Whip. Now you might be asking yourself, Why did Jesus do this? Well, because the heathens were defacing his Father's house. The Jews even noticed this and asked Him what authority did he do this under. This doesn't mean go out and attack people with a whip BUT this does mean that Jesus did react physically against morally corrupt practices going on in His father's house. So much for your non-violent angle. Oh and insult to injury here, Jesus in Luke 22:36 tells His followers to "sell your cloak and buy a SWORD". Which means that Jesus was NOT against self-defense, and understood the need for such things. To support the non-violent aspect though, Jesus did react negatively when Peter cut the ear off of The Roman soldier who arrested Jesus, Luke 22:49-51. However Jesus wasn't having it and healed the soldier's ear. Why ? Because Jesus understood what needed to be done and was willing to go peacefully. So yeah wrong there Mr. Fugelsang. Also, you'll notice I'm using citations to validate point.

 "Hung around with lepers, hookers and criminals"

Yep. Jesus did all those things. Note, He did NOT advocate their activity though.

"Never spoke English and not an American citizen."

Also correct.

"Anti-Capitalism and Anti-Wealth"

WRONG! Jesus never taught any exact political system (mostly because Christianity can work in any political system that will allow it to work). Jesus may have not taught capitalism BUT Mr. Fugelsang's words were "ANTI-CAPITALISM" which means He was AGAINST Capitalism. Now where would we find Jesus teaching against Capitalism? Nowhere. Jesus and The Bible do speak a lot about sharing though, Romans 12:10-13, Ephesians 4:28, 1 Tim 6:17-18, Hebrews 13:15-16. So The Bible teaches sharing...but ANTI-CAPITALISM?! Not at all. First of all in order to SHARE something you'd have to OWN something to begin with. Furthermore let's take a look at Acts 5:1-11, specifically verse 4 where Peter reveals Ananias OWNED the land. Therefore Peter was attempting to BUY some land, Buying implies that someone OWNED the land in order to sell it. Now, IF Peter was a follower of Jesus (and if Jesus was ANTI-CAPITALISM as Mr. Fugelsang said) then Peter would have had to rebuke the man and shun him for being selfish with the land that was rightfully everyone's. But no, Peter even told Ananias that if he didn't want to sell the land, he didn't have to! So obviously Jesus was HEAVY on sharing but was NOT anti-capitalism by ANY stretch of the imagination. 

This anti-rich part makes me laugh A LOT. For someone who claimed to have a pretty exclusive Christian background (Catholic...not the same thing) he really doesn't know much about the teachings of Jesus. Let's start at the beginning shall we? Jesus is God in the flesh (this is what Christians believe John 8:48...I could go on). So Jesus is God in The Flesh. In The Old Testament there was a man who was called a man after God's own heart, this man later became King. I'm talking about David. David was King...King equals rich. David was very rich and VERY blessed by God (keep in mind Jesus came from David's lineage)., So what does this tell you about rich people and their relationship to God? God is NOT ANTI-RICH, THEREFORE JESUS ISN'T EITHER! Jesus is against THE WORSHIP OF MONEY! Why can't anyone understand this? Just to be redundant let's review the little scene in Luke 18:18-25 (crack open your Bibles, NOW!).

The Rich Ruler calls Jesus "Good.". Jesus answers this with a VERY important question that The Rich Ruler does NOT catch, nor respond to BUT this is a VERY critical part of understanding this text. Jesus says, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God.". If The Rich Ruler were paying attention he would have heard the subtext of the question, just in case you missed it, allow me to clean it up for you. Jesus was asking The Rich Ruler if he was calling him God (once again Jesus is God in the Flesh). Jesus was asking The Rich Ruler this question because He wanted to make this guy knew who he was talking to (and apparently he didn't). So Jesus lists the bottom 5 commandants and ignores the top 5 (I'll explain why in a bit). The Rich Ruler confirms that he has kept those commandants and then Jesus tells him to SELL EVERYTHING he owns and join Him. The Rich Ruler is OBVIOUSLY disheartened by this answer and leaves. 

The COMMON misconception here is that Jesus literally wanted this man to sell everything and join Him, and why wouldn't that be a misconception, that's EXACTLY what Jesus said is it not? Yes, but here's where the topic of those missing 5 commandants come into play. The 10 Commandants are divided into 2 sets. The first 5 are man's responsibility before God, the second 5 are man's responsibility to each other. The Rich Ruler was doing great on his responsibilities to his fellow man but his responsibilities before God were LACKING VERY MUCH SO. How do I know this? Because Jesus was able to see into the man's heart (once again Jesus is God) and Jesus saw that The Rich Ruler loved his money more so than God. If The Rich Ruler DID love God, he would have been more than willing to sell his possessions. Jesus wasn't condemning the man for being rich, he was condemning the man for his unwillingness to part with his riches for eternal life (which to be fair it was The Ruler who asked Jesus how to obtain eternal life). Basically if The Rich Ruler REALLY wanted eternal life, he would have agreed. I doubt Jesus would have made him sell everything BUT the willingness of The Ruler would have shown Jesus that The Rich Ruler was down for the cause all the way, instead The Rich Ruler exposed his true nature. JESUS IS NOT AGAINST PEOPLE BEING RICH! DAVID WAS RICH! SOLOMON WAS RICH! ESTHER WAS RICH! JESUS IS AGAINST THE WORSHIP OF MONEY! Matt 6:24,Luke 16:13,1 Tim 6:10, Hebrews 13:5! Once again, citations.

"Anti-public prayer"

Seriously? Wow...this is a MAJOR swing and miss Mr. Fugelsang...so far you just got a few right. But this is just sad. Okay, let's look at Matthew 6:5 because that's the ONLY one He gives a citation for...and didn't research it completely, so leave it to me to come in and clean things up. Let's get started. Jesus was instructing His disciples to not be like hypocrites who pray for show. Jesus was NOT ANTI-PUBLIC prayer. Now Jesus DID preach to pray in private, Matthew 6:6-14. But Jesus is mostly discouraging making a spectacle of prayer. If a massive gathering of people decide to pray on the beach or at a camp site or event at school, Jesus isn't going to shake a finger at them. Jesus makes that clear when He says "so that they may be seen by men". Once again Jesus is God and He's talking about the intent of their actions, (ie, hoping people see how "holy" they are by praying in public). Jesus discourages this because their intention is NOT to seek an audience with God but rather to make a spectacle of themselves.

"Anti-Death Penalty"

Not true in a broader sense of the term, because Jesus is pretty much the invocation of The ULTIMATE DEATH penalty, (John 8:24). So was Jesus for the electric chair, lethal injection, ect. ect.? No, BUT He will bring judgment and a LOT of people are going to die, not only physically but eternally in Hellfire. But this is a broader sense of the term. However in The Old Testament who do find a Death penalty in effect. Death penalty is a societal issue and each society will judge if they choose to have one. Jesus made no pro or con about a death penalty for murders ect. ect. Death penalties are NOT about punishment, rather they're about justice. They are not meant to be cruel, they are meant to serve justice to those who have taken a life. For those who are anti-death penalty, you might as well be anti-war and anti-police as well because both of these jobs require you to kill when necessary (NOT out of punishment, out of justice and/or defense). God did not condemn David for killing Goliath, which shows that God understands the meaning of war and all that entails. So is Jesus anti-death penalty? No, but He wasn't exclusively pro-death penalty either...not making a very strong case here Mr. Fugelsang.

"Not anti-gay"

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Okay, let's go to The Bible to Matthew 19:4-6. Here we see Jesus outlining what a marriage is. Notice, He says MALE AND FEMALE! And how wonderful is it that the text put those in all caps so I didn't have to. Don't give me that face as if homosexuals weren't as popular in that day as they are now (The Romans pretty much perfected homosexuality). Jesus makes it very clear, MALE AND FEMALE. Still not convinced? Okay, let's go to Leviticus 18. Specifically Lev 18:22. Once again, Jesus is God in the flesh (so if God says it Jesus agrees with it). Oh Ugo, that's the OLD testament! Okay, let's look at the new, specifically Romans 1:18-32. Very clearly there's a major anti-homosexual message here. Now Mr. Fugelsang, I have to GREATLY question your admiration of Jesus at this point. You claim to admire Him and Jesus affirms The Bible as His inspired word...so when Jesus' inspired word preaches a message that is clearly anti-homosexual, you claim that Jesus was never against it. So obviously you're picking and choosing what you want to believe about Jesus instead of who Jesus actually IS. This is NOT admiration. Furthermore 1 Cor 6:9.

"Didn't mention abortion."

If you mean Jesus used the word "abortion" no, He did not. BUT Jesus does state that "Thou shall not commit murder!" Matthew 19:18. I am 100% we can all agree on what murder is, right? Murder is the unlawful taking of someone's life. Prime example:

If a police officer is chasing a criminal and the criminal prepares to shoot a civilian in order to escape and the police officer shoots the criminal and kills him, we do not call that a murder. The Police officer was acting in the defense of a civilian. This is echoed in several other instances. As I've stated before David killed Goliath in the setting of war. In these cases not even God calls that murder. These are simply killings. Murder would be the aforementioned criminal shooting a civilian. There was no law or infraction made upon the criminal to shoot the civilian. Can we all agree on that? Good. So if Jesus commands us not to commit murder, and very clearly God makes a distinction between murder and killing, I ask you a very important question: What law did an embryo break in order to be killed? 

But you're already saying that abortion is NOT murder, okay so in order for it NOT to be a murder there MUST be a lawful reason WHY you're killing someone...otherwise it's murder. And I have done my research, embryos develop heartbeats as soon as 6 weeks! And as far as I'm concerned if it has a heartbeat and you actively seek to STOP that heartbeat, that in my mind is murder. And consider this Ex 21:22-23. Please note that this does NOT specify AT WHAT TERM this is acceptable. Now there are people who will argue the following:

This was a comment in response to "180 The Movie" found on Youtube. The username has been blurred out to protect the innocent and the section I am arguing has been highlighted.

A fetus will GROW into a person, so it may not be a person YET but it will grow to be one. In a similar fashion a seed is NOT an apple tree YET, but it will GROW to be one (this is not a disputable fact). So saying that a fetus is not a person is to deny the fact that it will be a person. As far as not having thoughts, feeling, self-awareness or complex interpersonal relationships...first of all, coma patients don't have feelings (how can they? They're in comas). Self-awareness, most mentally retarded children aren't self-aware and once again, neither are people in comas. And interpersonal relationships, the fetus's FIRST interpersonal relationship is with THE MOTHER, so that's a foolish argument to make on all accounts. And considering the logical conclusion I've drawn here, Jesus is against abortion, He just never used the word "abortion". 

"Didn't mention premarital sex"

So that whole thing about looking at a woman lustfully in Matthew 5:27-28 had NOTHING to do with premarital sex. Considering that Jesus emphasized marriage Matthew 19, and condemned fornicators in Matthew 15:19-20. Furthermore, Jesus' points are echoed in Acts 15:29, 1 Cor 6:9-10 and in Hebrews 13:4. It's PAINFULLY obvious that Jesus taught against premarital sex. Once again, I've got citations, all you've got is well..pretty much your word and so far it's not looking very reliable.

"Never justified torture."

You're 100% right. Jesus was not pro-torture.

"Never called the poor lazy."

Right.

"Never asked a leper for a co-pay."

Right.

"Never fought for tax cuts for the wealthy Nazereans."

Right.

"Long haired, brown skinned, homeless Middle Eastern Jew."

 Okay, quick issue. Although I won't deny that Jesus was of a dark pigmentation, going to Revelation to support this is NOT the best way to go and here's why. Revelation is an EXTREMELY coded book FILLED with Jewish iconography and symbology of the day that only The Jews of that time would understand. The verse Mr. Fugelsang is referring to is Rev 1:12-14. HOWEVER, you have to understand that "Wool" and "Bronze" were not straight forward terms like they are today, whether they meant something different in that time. Consider the visions in Daniel 2. Each material and animal was reflective of 4 rising empires. It's all very hard to explain so I suggest pulling out a Bible a research it for yourselves. Long story short, a LOT of Revelation is symbolic language. ONCE again, I am NOT denying that Jesus was of a dark pigmentation, I'm just saying Revelation ain't to place to go proving that. Gun to my head, if I HAD to guess what Jesus MAY have looked like, I'd immediately pick:

I'd go so far as to Jesus was probably just as built as Naveen Andrews to, considering Jesus was a carpenter and all.

"Of course that's only if you actually believe what's in The Bible."

Well Mr. Fugelsang, I suggest you stick to comedy as your knowledge of The Bible and Jesus is pretty flawed, which amazes me because you said you admire Him. I think you just admire the image you made up of Him in your mind, because the TRUE Jesus would rebuke you for distorting His word to suit your own political alignment. Now, I'll leave the case to you, the reader, which one of us made a more clear case for our position? The person offering citations, references and logic to support their position or the person who was merely making statement after statement without context? The choice is obvious. I suggest YOU read your Bible Mr. Fugelsang and believe what's in there. Thank you all and God bless.

Why is Pedophilia Wrong ? Seriously ?

Once again I decided to write yet another satirical article THIS time about pedophilia. I want you all to know 100% that this is SATIRICAL! 100% SATIRICAL! I am NOT in favor of pedophilia, but I SERIOUSLY had to write this article just to prove a point and once again if you agree with this article then may God have mercy on you. Let's get started.
___________________________________________________________________________
I'm confused here. I have to ask an EXTREMELY serious question. Why is pedophilia wrong ? You're probably very disgusted right now and I understand that but hear me out before you judge. I saw a video quite a few days ago about a boy who decided to be referred to as a girl.

I thought to myself, IF this child is able to identify her own sexual identity at such a young age, who's to say she can't understand the concept of Love ? We're making MANY psychological breakthroughs with children's psychology and development ENOUGH to prove that they're much smarter than we give them credit for. Much like young Hailey here. I'll do you one better, I recently read an article about a 7 year old boy who expressed physical attraction to one of the young men on the popular "GLEE" show. As seen here. Among these 2 things are a common thread of young children making absolute statements about their sexual identity.

So let me ask you, why is pedophilia such a horrific topic to discuss ? I mean pedophiles can't help that they're attracted to children and who's to say a child CAN'T be physically and emotionally attracted to a someone much older than they are? I think it's absolutely foolish to say they can't. Most parents feel that their child is able to express love for them (their parents) but the idea of expressing any other kind of love is completely out of the question. FOOLISH! People consider pedophiles to be child molesters and rapists and things of that sort when in reality they're all seeking the same thing each of us are, a normal healthy relationship with the person they love, and at the end of the day isn't that something we all want?

But you just can't get passed that child issue, can you ? Okay how about this here, in another article in The Huffingtonpost I read that Sex Change Treatment is becoming increasingly popular among children. Here we have a child at 18 months expressing that she is a boy. Who are her parents to further confuse the poor child and tell him that he is actually a she. If she says she's a boy, she's a boy! This is at 18 months! If a child is THAT early developed mentally and psychologically then why are we still refusing them the love that all of us have?

 No one wants to think about children having sex, BUT it happens! Children as young as 12 years old are discovering things about their body and their hormones are raging. Do you want your 12 year old son knocking up some poor girl because they didn't know what they were doing, would you rather have your 12 year old daughter pregnant because she got with some boy who didn't know what he was doing OR would you rather have someone their with experience to cater to their needs and take their time with them? I'd go for the latter. Understand something, I think it's horrible for anyone to force themselves on anyone sexually, but pedophiles don't want to do that. Sure there are MANY pedophiles out there who give them a horrible name forcing themselves upon young boys and girls, BUT you can't let a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch. That's UNFAIR because there are MANY law abiding pedophiles who aren't raping anyone and yet they get same amount of flack simply for something outside of their control.

Is it wrong to feel that way about a child? If so, then why ? If a person expresses that a child is  beautiful is it wrong to call them that ? Is not a little boy or little girl, a man and a woman ? We certainly allow them to make adult decisions about their lives and identity. We certainly treat them with the respect we'd treat any adult. Simply because through psychology we have learned that their opinion is just as valid as anyone else, and HOW DARE YOU SAY, "Oh but they're just kids, they don't know what they're saying." How do you know ? Hailey certainly KNOWS she's a girl, That 7 year old boy KNOWS he's gay. So when your son expresses physical desires for an older woman or man, or your daughter expresses physical desires for an older man or woman who are you to tell them that what they're feeling is wrong? Or that they're not allowed to feel that way YET? You can't control people's feelings.

Lastly I'd like to say that nowadays, adults engaging in sexual intercourse with "minors" has been on the rise lately, if you turn on the news you're bound to hear a news story about a female teacher having sex with her student. Why are we still treating this as if it's a horrible thing? If both parties wanted to have sex and agreed to have sex then why is it still wrong ? Because one party is older than the other? So you're old enough to make statements about your sexuality and your gender but you're not old enough to have sex? And we're making this arbitrary rule about 18 being legally an adult, in some states you can get married at 16. Those numbers don't magically impart maturity to you. There are VERY immature 16 and 18 year olds, and some VERY mature 10 and 15 year olds but they're not allowed to have sex? What's the reasoning here? Because I fail to see it.

Is it that pedophilia disgusts you? Why should we keep them from being happy solely based on our tastes of what we find disgusting and attractive? Whose standard are we using ? No father wants to think about his daughter having sex (young or old), the only thing a father wants for his daughter is she's cared for and provided for and who can do that better than a man just like him? The benefits GREATLY outweigh the problem. And in all honesty what are the problems we have with pedophilia? Children shouldn't be having sex ? You can do a Google search for Young Mothers, and they all are well adjusted children who aren't psychologically disturbed at all. And being a mother means they had to have sex. So if you wanna argue that sex at an early age can psychological damage a child you're gonna have a hard time proving that outside of rape.

Which again is NOT pedophilia. So really, what's wrong with pedophilia and why are we denying them their rights? Do they not have the right to love who ever they want (like the rest of us)? So I employ you to think long and hard about why pedophilia is wrong, without appealing to the same tired tropes of Psychological damage, Sexual abuses, ect. ect. Why do YOU think pedophilia is wrong, and if you can't think of a reason outside of your emotional comfort...then maybe you should re-think how you feel about it.
___________________________________________________________________________
 To conclude the satire, I leave you with this.

Euthanasia, Why not ?

Okay, so all too often I talk about Christian topics here but I wanted to write a satirical piece for the sole purpose of exposing a few things, I'm using this as a preamble for anyone who thinks I'm 100% serious about this. I AM NOT. This is satire and it's meant to invoke thought rather than agreement, and if you DO agree with any of this then may God have mercy on you.

Poison. Wait, WHAT?!

"What they've been mislead into what they think their Bible tells them." ? Good one Cenk, good one, anyone else who doesn't do any research would get fooled but not me. First of all, I'd like to point out that Cenk failed to provide a citation. Not to resort to internet speak here but if you're going to make a reference to something written PROVIDE A CITATION! ESPECIALLY IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT VALIDATES YOUR POINT! Basically anyone who just agreed with Cenk without asking for a citation is simply believing what they're told rather than researching it themselves (hypocrisy much?). I'd like to say that at this point in time I am STILL searching for whatever it was Cenk was referencing and have thus far found bumpkis.

*Jan. 30th, 2012, 5:46pm* FOUND IT! Let's take a look at it: Numbers 5

Cenk clearly said "poison" and unfortunately for him the text does not. The text Numbers 5:17 clearly says "dust" from the floor of the tabernacle. Dust and poison are two completely different things for anyone who wants to argue semantics. So what we have here is a symbolic ritual as opposed to poisoning someone. Drinking water with dust in it wouldn't cause a person's thighs to swell ect. ect. and it certainly wouldn't cause immediate death. Furthermore nowhere in here is abortion or forced miscarriages looked upon favorably, once again Cenk I gotta question how thoroughly you researched this.

 Considering that in those ages Child bearing was incredibly important to a woman's worth (I am NOT arguing that it should be now, women are worth a lot more than the ability to have children), at any rate the prospect of NOT being able to bare children is a terrifying concept to a woman in those times. So again, where's this favorable look ? Now being a Bible Believing Christian and not a Nominal Christian I believe that in THOSE time before DNA tests ect. ect. God was that involved with people where He WOULD do as He promised and spare the innocent the consequence of of never baring children again.  Also would a little dirt in the water cause someone to NEVER BARE CHILDREN AGAIN ? Doubtful. Might make you sick for a couple of days but it wouldn't stop you from pro-creating period. Now let's look at what Cenk says in the video;

1) Never mentions abortion specifically...
If you mean in terms of using the word "abortion" it's self, no. BUT Exodus  21:22-23 makes the case that a child in the womb is a living creature. And I'd like to point out that if there's something to take out of a woman there was something growing there as well. Furthermore embryos develops a heartbeat around 5 to 6 weeks of gestation, and as far as I'm concerned if it has a heartbeat and something purposefully stops it's heart from beating, I consider that murder. Because let's face it you can't kill anything that doesn't have a heartbeat. So again, it's not  mentioned specifically BUT it is hinted at in more than one way. If people back in those days had the ability to abort babies as we do now the language would be very different.

2) We already discussed the favorable thing, so no need in beating that dead horse.

I find it funny that when a non-believer says something about The Bible everyone is so willing to listen to them REGARDLESS of whether or not a citation is given but when a Christian provides a citation those SAME people will IMMEDIATELY ignore the context and go with what the non-believer said. Funny...

UGH! SERIOUSLY TYT ?! SERIOUSLY ?!

^"22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. ²³ For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. ²⁴ But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.²⁵ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,"-Eph 5:22-25

 Do I REALLY have to jump down the throat of The Young Turks Today ? I believe I do. WHY because sometimes it just gives me a MAJOR headache when Non-Believers make attempts to put words in the mouth of The Bible from Christians and reapply them to mean something COMPLETELY different. Before I go on, I'd like to say that I don't care about Michelle Bachman at all. I'm a Christian (obviously) and Moderately Conservative and I wouldn't vote for her with a gun to my head. Just so we're clear.

Ana's interuptation of "Submissive" IS NOT what The Bible is saying. God does NOT want Women to be brainless servants with NO personality, NO say in anything, ect. ect. If Ana and Michael had ACTUALLY do research on the context of the text they'd see what I posted above.

"Husbands love your wives, AS CHRIST LOVED THE CHURCH, HE GAVE HIMSELF UP FOR HER!"
Eph 5:25

Does that sound like a "GO MAKE ME A SANDWICH!" type situation ? The submission expressed in the text implies a mutual submission. As made further in Eph 5:28;

^"28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself"

That just said. LOVE YOUR WIFE AS YOUR OWN BODY! Does that sound like a BAD submissive relationship?  No, rather The Bible is telling Wives to submit to their Husband's authority. Not in a "ANYTHING HE SAYS GOES SENSE!" but as sign of respect. That is the man you chose to be Your Husband therefore you should listen to him. IF The Husband does love you as he loves his own body, he's going to want your input and your suggestions on things. THIS IS NOT AN EXCUSE TO TELL WOMEN THAT THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITHOUT THEIR HUSBAND'S PERMISSION! If my girlfriend (hopefully wife, eventually) asked me for permission to do something I'd be confused and ask her "Why are you asking me ?" Granted, she'd never ask me because she knows that I respect her decisions and choices and vice versa.

From Ana's question I'm assuming that NOT ONCE did she even bother to read the rest of the verse Bachman quoted but instead used Bachman as a reference thinking that That's probably what the text is mandating. Michael however AT LEAST says that there are varying degrees of submission BUT STILL WHY CAN'T THEY ADDRESS THE REST OF THE TEXT?! The UNFORTUNATE thing is that by the end of this video they once again BLAME RELIGION and NOT their lack of Biblical Context, Reading Comprehension and Research Ability. And to make matter worse...people feed into this crap. *sigh* And people say that Christians are the dominate force in America ? Yeah...right.

THANK GOD, at least ONE BEACON OF HOPE HERE!

Can women be pastors ? No.

Lately, I've been dealing with this question more and more and I finally decided to address this topic once and for all. I do understand that this topic is NOT an Atheist topic but rather one within our own church, and with this blog being geared more towards refuting atheism, why would I bother to address this topic ? Because it's a HEAVILY debated topic and one that causes more division than most things in the church. Below is an article written by a Pastor of a church who affirms the position that women can be pastors. I am not writing this article to shun him or act as if I am smarter than him. I am writing this article first off because I love his church, I love him, and I want him to know and understand the scriptures better. With that being said, I've gone through the article and I've address some of the points made therein. My rebuttals are in red. Enjoy.

__________________________________________________________

In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul says, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.” That pretty much sums it up doesn’t it? Women can’t be pastors, right? Wrong… Whether or not you’ve read the whole Bible, you know it’s a very, very long book. This very long story has a lot to say about this issue. In order to understand this passage, we must understand more of the book.

Let us begin in Genesis.

When Adam and Eve rejected God’s leadership, they disconnected themselves from the source of all that is good. When anyone is disconnected from God, bad things happen. There are consequences. In Genesis 3, God lays out some of things that would happen, now that they had disconnected themselves from Him. In Genesis 3:16, God said to Eve, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Keep in mind, this is not the way things were supposed to be.

REBUTTAL #1: Whoa, stop right there ! Who said this is not the way things were supposed to be ? Granted it was after Eve sinned that God made that statement, BUT if that isn't how things were supposed to be, then HOW were they supposed to be ? Because if you look at the Created Order (a subject that referenced often throughout The New Testament you can clearly see that Adam was placed above Eve. Not in terms of value but in terms of responsibility. This is a doctrine called Federal Headship.(see Romans 5:12-14 ) long story short Sin did NOT enter the world through Eve, it entered the world through Adam. The problem with Genesis is that Eve TOOK the leadership position from Adam because Adam ALLOWED her to do (See Genesis 3:6). Adam should have been the leader and instructed Eve not to eat of the fruit. Because he did not, sin made the roles of husbands and wives more difficult. Note God called out ADAM first. God appointed Adam to be our representative, not Eve. When Adam sinned, the roles between husband and wife did not change. So for the writer to state "this is not the way things were supposed to be" I'd really like to know HOW things were supposed to be and from where they get their answer from. Moving on...

Now, we’ve seen this scenario played out over and over for centuries, haven’t we? Often, but not always, women place more emphasis on intimacy than they do authority. Often, but not always, women will sacrifice their leadership status, if it means they will be able to improve their relationships. Often, but not always, men value authority over relationship. Often, but not always, men will do things that will elevate their leadership status, even if it means they must hurt the ones they love.

After the fall, men were quick to lust after leadership. Not only did they want to lead, but worse yet, they didn’t even know how to. No one did. Not without God. Violence filled the earth. Please do not misunderstand me. I am not saying that women were better than men, or anything like that. Men and women are totally depraved without God. We are both equally evil. We are nothing without God.

When it came to leadership, look at the ways civilizations wanted to spread their fame and increase their territories, largely by wars propagated and fought by men. Sin caused human beings to totally misunderstand and misuse the concept of leadership. Men would try to get other men to follow them. But even if that didn’t work, at least they could tell the women what to do. Many times they’d use their physical strength and stature to “put women in their place.” These are just a few of the many pathetic results of human rebellion against God.

God had a plan to redeem and restore creation, even before people rejected Him. Eventually, Jesus (100% God, 100% human) would come to us, suffer the consequences of sin (death, separation from God), and defeat them by rising from the dead, destroying the power of sin. Creation is on it’s way to one day living perfectly under the leadership of God, back to the way things were supposed to be in Genesis 1 and 2. That being said, there are many specific commands in the Bible that directly teach us how to live, right here, right now. However, the Bible does not explicitly and directly tell us what to do in every single situation.

Think about the Old Testament. There are over 600 laws, commandments that say “do this… do that…” or “don’t do this… don’t do that…” That’s a lot of rules. You might think that God would have dealt with every form of moral evil under the sun in these 600+ laws. However, not one of those laws says anything against polygamy. After the fall, men started taking many wives. Interestingly enough, God hates polygamy, but He allowed it. Polygamy was immensely destructive to society. And God allowed it?

Among those 600+ laws, God said that kings should not take “many wives” (Deuteronomy 17:17). He allowed them to take multiple wives, but just not “many.” God doesn’t even define what “many” is. It’s like when God says, “Don’t get drunk.” Well how many drinks does it take to make someone drunk? One state says the acceptable driving BAC is this, one state says that. But they didn’t have BAC tests back then… What is drunk? God expects the hearts of men and women to seek His desires, and then they will know the answer. Can you hear what the Spirit is saying?

Some people may wonder, “Why doesn’t God just straight out say ‘No’ to polygamy like He does with so many other bad things?” Well, maybe we can ask God that when we get to heaven. For now, it is important to understand that this is how God chose to deal with this very destructive pattern, a pattern that resulted from the fall.

Let’s look at another example: divorce. God hates divorce, big time. However, in that list of 600+ laws, God permitted divorce. When Jesus walked the earth, He told people how much He couldn’t stand divorce. Some people asked him, then why did God allow it in the Law, through Moses? “Jesus replied, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery” (Matthew 19:8-9).

Get this, God hates divorce, but He didn’t deal with the situation directly for thousands of years, because our hearts were too hard. Our hearts and minds were too jaded to understand this concept, so God dealt with it “indirectly.” People read the Bible, got divorced, engaged in polygamy… because they didn’t hear the Spirit of the text.

NOTE: A lot of this is filler that I'm not really going to address. I will later on but not in this article. I was planning on removing it and just focus on the main topic, BUT in order to maintain the proper representation of the writer's argument, I decided to let that section remain. The actual topic is dealt with below.

Back to our original statement, “Women can be pastors”. Understanding how God dealt with polygamy and divorce sheds light on the strategy that God has used to make it clear that women can be pastors.

REBUTTAL #2: Wait...God hates polygamy...He only allowed it because in those times when a woman did not have a husband, her family was basically screwed, therefore someone would marry them (even if they had their own wife) in order to support that family. This does not mean God favored it. God has 2 wills, a Decreeing Will and a Permissive Will. The Decreeing Will of God is like when God SPOKE the Universe into being, He said let there be light and there was light. God said it, it happened, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. A Permissive Will is when God makes a statement but that statement is able to be ignored. For example, God stated in The 10 Commandments that "Thou shall have no other Gods before me.". God could've easily said "You will worship me." and EVERYONE on Earth would've bowed down. But He did not. His Permissive Will, enables us to sin, but it does not mean God favors it. It simply means He allows us to do. Polygamy was not favorable thing to do even in that society but it was considered necessary, and that's why they did it. Divorce on the other hand, yes God hates it, however He gave us 2 incidences in which He'll allow it. (see Matt 19:9).

As the centuries progressed, God communicated that women can operate in the spiritual gifts in the same way that men can. God didn’t just “come out and say it,” like we wish He would have. He expects us to overcome our prejudices and allow our hearts to grasp what the Spirit is saying.

In Judges 4, we read about a woman named Deborah, a prophet. God made Deborah the Judge over the entire nation of Israel. Don’t go thinin’ “Judge Judy” or “Judge Joe Brown.” There was only one Judge of Israel, and this position does not compare to the modern day judge. This is a position that was even more powerful and influential than today’s American president. God choose her. God gave her the gifts to lead. God led Israel through her. This was totally against the grain of culture. If the Bible were written by humans, and not God, it would never have said that God chose Deborah to be the Judge of Israel. This was unacceptable.

REBUTTAL #3: WAIT ! Stop THE PRESSES ! I cannot tell you how many times I have heard Deborah used as a defense of Woman Pastors. Let's be 100% clear here. Deborah was a JUDGE ! A JUDGE ! Notice something, where are Judges found ? In court houses, not churches. Furthermore the title of Judge is not an ecclesiastic one, it's a social one. Therefore bringing Deborah up only defends the position that women can be social leaders (ie, Senators, Presidents, Governs, Judges, so on so forth) but it has nothing to do with Church titles. So Deborah is generally irrelevant to the topic at hand. Which is can women be pastors, Not can women be leaders.

Also in the Book of Judges, we read about a woman named Jael, and how God used her to kill a king who’s kingdom threatened the existence of Israel.

REBUTTAL #4: Okay...women can be warriors too...but still not on topic.

In the Gospels, we discover the very first people to preach the resurrection of Jesus. You might guess it was Peter and John, right? Wrong. It was a group of women. God revealed the resurrection to women first. You may not think this is a big deal. Get this… In the first century, in the eyes of their society, this kind of testimony would have been worthless on the tongues of women. If the Bible were merely authored by humans, it would never have said that women were the first ones to understand and spread the message of the resurrection. This would have been incredibly distasteful, and made the movement look like some kind of cosmic joke! However, this is how God chose to use the “weak” to shame the “wise.”

REBUTTAL #5: I like how the writer inserts the word "preach" into the article as if these women were in a pulpit. This is just my opinion but perhaps the women were the first ones to hear of Jesus' resurrection because...oh...I don't know, ALL THE MEN RAN FOR THE HILLS! Except for Peter who followed at a distance and then denied Christ. When Jesus was praying in the garden He came back and found His disciples sleeping. Also not in Luke 24:11-12, the women's testimony WAS considered foolishness UNTIL Peter went to go see for himself. Yes the women were the first to know BUT Peter was the man they needed to convince in order to have a solid testimony. So just because the women were the first to know of Jesus' resurrection still does not prove they can be pastors. It just proves that God can use anyone at anytime for His glory, even women who's testimonies weren't carried with much weight.

In Acts 18, we read about Priscilla, a leader in the church. Priscilla had a husband named Aquila. However, many times in the New Testament, Priscilla’s name is written first, before her husband’s. In the first century language of Koine Greek, this is making a huge statement. In a male dominant society, it was not “proper” to mention the wife before the husband, but this is how God wanted it written. We also learn that Priscilla and her husband both taught the Word of God to a highly educated man, Apollos. Priscilla instructed Apollos. She taught him the Bible. She taught him to be a very influential church leader. Wait a second… didn’t 1 Timothy say that women can’t teach men…? Oh my, oh my… Does the Bible contradict itself…? Absolutely not!

REBUTTAL #6: For starters, NOWHERE in The Bible does it say that Priscilla was a leader in the church, to imply such is an error. Also if you read Acts 18:24-26. Priscilla and her husband Aquila were just AT the church when Apollos was speaking. BUT, did Priscilla get up and say anything in the pulpit ? Did Aquila get up and say anything in a pulpit? No, what did they do ? Well if you read on, it'll say that Priscilla and Aquila invited Apollos to their home and taught him. Notice how she didn't do anything in the church. Furthermore in 1 Timothy 2:12-14 Paul is talking about how a woman should conduct themselves WITHIN the church. Therefore it is 100% A-OKAY for Priscilla to address Apollos and teach him at her home, but within the church, no. Also the authority which Paul is speaking about is not general authority such as a C.E.O has over the employees, this is the authority Adam has over Eve, notice that after this Paul point to the Created Order to support his point. Side note, look in your indexes, Priscilla's name only occurs in Acts 18 and 1 Cor 16:19 and neither verse makes any implication that she was a leader. Simply pointing out that her name was written before Aquila's name and it was a big no-no in that society does not imply pastorship and it is very faulty logic to think so.

In Acts chapter 21, we read about Philip’s four unmarried daughters. They were all prophets. That means these women prophets spoke God’s words. They said things like, “The LORD says this…” Then they delivered a message directly from God. How much more authoritative can speaking get? Doesn’t 1 Timothy say that women should be quiet? Oh no, another contradiction…? Not a chance!

REBUTTAL #7:Philip's 4 daughters were not in the church prophesying. They were at Philip's house. And yet again, just because they prophesied does not mean they can be pastors. And yet again Paul in 1 Tim 2:12-14 is discussing Church etiquette, which again his 4 daughters were not in during their prophesying.

In Romans 16, we read about a woman named Junia. Quite sadly, for a few centuries in the early beginnings of the church, some men could not accept Junia’s name being in the Bible, so they changed it to “Junias,” a man’s name. Why? Because the Greek text seems to communicate that Junia was an apostle. Apostles were pastors, on steroids! Apostles started and pastored many churches. Based on the way it is written in the most respected Greek manuscripts we have, we would be wise to accept that she was an apostle. Men in the first centuries sure believed she was an Apostle, which is why they changed the text. Eventually, people caught wind that God’s Word was being adulterated in Romans 16, and they put a stop to it.

REBUTTAL #8: I won't deny that the name Junia was changed to Junias, I'll need to do more research on that topic, HOWEVER. Romans 16:7 and Mark 6:30 are the only places in which Junia is mentioned. Also the word Apostle does not automatically translate to Pastor. Apostle simply means "messenger", it comes from the Greek word apostello. Junia was not one of the 12 called by Christ Himself but rather a missionary. The Bible makes no implication that Junia had similar authority as that equal to the 12. Therefore to imply such without visible reason is a faulty argument.

So what’s with the few texts in the New Testament that seem to say women can’t preach, teach, and/or lead men (1 Corinthians 14:34-38; 1 Timothy 2:8-3:7; Titus 1:5-9)? It’s important to remember that these verses come from letters written by Paul, and they are addressing specific situations that he is dealing with. In some cities, women were mature enough to lead, prophesy, and preach. In other cities, the women just weren’t ready for it.

In some churches, women were abusing their newly discovered liberty in Christ, and they were misusing the power of leadership. They wanted to get back at men for the centuries of injustice. They were trying to exercise authority over men. Remember the curse from the fall? The man will have “authority over” the woman? That being said, in some situations, Paul said “no” to women leadership, because their hearts were too hard.

REBUTTAL #9: They were letters yes, BUT Paul was addressing issues in THE CHURCH. As in The Church as a whole. Why else would these letters be distributed ? Paul was addressing a single church BUT all churches would benefit from these letters. And thus far from the examples given, The instructions in Paul's letters still stand.

Here’s a modern example. I was in Africa for nine months. I spent a lot of my time living in a mud hut, in a remote, Muslim village. One of my projects in the village was to help the people build a school for their children. Well, in order to build the school, we had to take out a bunch of massive palm trees. By the way, we had to do it with machetes and shovels? Not my idea of fun!

It would’ve been much easier for me to buy a few chainsaws and give them to the people to use. In fact, some of the people actually asked me to buy them. However, the community didn’t know how to use chainsaws. They didn’t grow up using powered equipment. If I would’ve dropped these things off, and then come back the next week, there might have been a few dozen body parts laying on the ground. Why? Are chainsaws bad? Of course not! But the people weren’t ready for them. So, it was better for me to say, “No to chainsaws.” In the right situation, if people were ready for them, I would say “yes.”

It was right for Paul to say, “No to women being pastors”, when the specific church he wrote to wasn’t ready for it. However, Paul affirmed women leadership in other situations, when the time was right. There are no contradictions whatsoever. We must understand the way Paul was communicating. Many people make this sound so complex, but it is actually quite simple, really…

Let’s look at one more example of how this works.

How about slavery? We know God hates slavery. Nevertheless, He reluctantly permitted it, because God worked with us on our levels. What about Paul? Well, he hated slavery too. However, do you remember all those passages where Paul talks about slaves “obeying their masters?” He even tells them to remain slaves, even though they had become disciples of Jesus. He said, “Don’t run away.” Why doesn’t Paul just outright overthrow slavery? Why doesn’t he just tell it like it is? Because, promoting the saving truth of the Gospel was the first priority, and he didn’t want to overshadow it. If a person understands who Jesus is… what He has accomplished through His life, death, and resurrection, then it should eventually be obvious that slavery is evil.

Let’s not forget, Paul did challenge slavery in the book of Philemon. A slave named Onesimus ran away from his master, Philemon, then he became a disciple of Jesus. Running away from your master was punishable by death, or at least some really severe torture. Paul told Philemon to let it go, and take Onesmius back as a brother in Christ, not a slave. Wow! This is huge! Paul didn’t say, “Hey Philemon, slavery is wrong! Let’s start up an abolitionist movement right now!” No, it should be obvious to anyone who follows Jesus that slavery is wrong. Period. If our hearts are in tune with the Spirit, it is obvious!

Well, it sure took a long time for American Christians to figure that one out… For hundreds of years, American Christians quoted the Bible. They said things like, “See, it says right here! You’re a slave. I’m your master. God says obey your slave masters! That’s just the way it is, and you better believe it, because the Bible says so!”

REBUTTAL #10: Slavery during Biblical times was not like slavery in 18th century America. There were only 3 reasons people became slaves during those times, as spoils of war, willingly, or they were purchased. Furthermore the slaves back in those times were similar to butlers (at least the willing ones) Furthermore, these slaves were not mistreated or shunned or anything like that. Slaves were people who worked for other people and sometimes, those slaves were paid for their work, not much granted but still. Even those slaves as war spoils were not generally mistreated.

But when we go back to Genesis 1 and 2, we learn that God never intended anything like this…

Back to our original statement, “Women can be pastors”. Of course they can, if they’re called by God. By the way, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).

REBUTTAL #11: That Galatians verse is ALWAYS ripped out of context. That verse is NOT talking about gender. If you read the context, it is not discussing roles in the church but rather it is showing that all are grafted into the Promise of Abraham regardless of ethnicity, social class and gender. It is NOT saying that we are the same throughout. That would be silly considering that if our gender did not matter and we are all the same, the banning of homosexuality would make no sense. God is showing us that despite our differences we can still be in Christ. Because Christ is for The Jews and Greeks and the Men and The Women and The Slaves and The Free. For the context of Gal 3:28 (see Rom 10:12, 1 Cor 12:13, Eph 2:16, Col 3:11-18,)

God leads churches through the Holy Spirit, through leaders, through pastors. Being a pastor requires gifts, gifts that come from God, not men (1 Corinthians 12). God gives them to whoever He chooses. May we follow His leadership.

IN CONCLUSION: the writer of this article failed to make a valid point for women to be pastors and has made several assumptions to draw his conclusion. Rather than deal with verses that address the issue of pastorship clearly as Paul has laid out in 1 Tim 2:11-14, Titus 1:5-7, stating that The Elder is to be "THE HUSBAND OF ONE WIFE". A woman is unable to be a husband and therefore is exempt from being a Pastor or Elder within the church. Likewise Paul continually states "MAN" in each of these letters for the role of pastor or elder. Paul does not use unisex language or dance around the topic, Paul points clearly to the Created Order of Adam and Eve as well as The Federal Headship of Adam and Christ in order to prove that he is NOT catering to society but rather is going by the examples laid out before him. By using these verses which are on the topic, we can see that the answer to the topic: Can women be pastors is a resounding "No." I will invite the author of this article to discuss the topic further and I will pray for Him that Christ convicts his heart to embrace His word. And once again I will say I am NOT doing this to prove someone wrong, rather I am doing this to prove Christ's word. In 1 Peter 3:15, we are ordered to give a defense for the faith that is in us, and since the author of this article has laid out his position, I, in turn as a brother in Christ have laid out mine, NOT for the sake of being right or divisive but simply for the sake of The Body of Christ. I will follow the author's lead and say May we follow His Leadership. Peace in Christ all ! n_n;;

For Further reading:

http://www.carm.org/apologetics/women-ministry/should-women-be-pastors-and-elders

http://www.carm.org/apologetics/women-ministry/genesis-2-adam-and-eve-and-authority

http://www.carm.org/apologetics/women-ministry/adam-our-federal-head

http://www.carm.org/apologetics/women-ministry/was-junia-romans-167-female-apostle-authority

Fulfill The Law: Ugo Strange's Guide To Handling Atheist Arguments

You: Christians don't need to kill Homosexuals and everything else because we're no longer under The Law.

Atheist: You think so ?

You: Yeah, The Bible says so.

Atheist: Oh yeah, what about Matthew 5:17 ?

You:...Ummm...what's Matthew 5:17 ?

Atheist:"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Your Bible and your Christ says that He did NOT destroy The Law ! So you Christians are still under the law. And since you're still under the law, why aren't you killing homosexuals ? Because if you don't, you're
not following The Law.

You: Ummmm.....0_o
__________________________________________________
Has This happened to you ? Where you've been seemingly cornered into questioning your faith in God ? Well have no fear, I am here to debunk a common Atheist argument with simple logic. So hold on tight and enjoy the ride.

All too often I hear Atheists use this argument to try and prove that A) God is mean B) The Bible Contradicts it's self or C) Jesus isn't God. However when ANYONE goes against The Bible we automatically know they are WRONG ! But this argument seems to be kinda solid right ? Wrong! First of all, what does it mean to fulfill ? How does one Fulfill a Law ? By using wiktionary to look up the word fulfill I get several meanings which I'll post here:

to fulfill (third-person singular simple present fulfills, present participle fulfilling, simple past and past participle fulfilled)

1. (archaic) To fill up.

My lady is positively fulfilled of grace.

2. To satisfy, carry out, bring to completion (an obligation, a requirement, etc.).

You made a promise, son, and now you must fulfill it.

3. To emotionally or artistically satisfy; to develop one's gifts to the fullest.

This is the most fulfilling work I've ever done.

4. To obey, follow, comply with (a rule, requirement etc.).

Unfortunately, you don't fulfill the criteria for extra grants at the present time.

For Matthew 5:17, I'll be using the 2nd definition of Fulfill, which means to "carry out, to bring to completion, to satisfy.". Therefore we can re-read Matthew 5:17 as "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to bring it to completion.". But Ugo, how does Jesus complete the Law ? Well, The Bible says that Jesus was made UNDER THE LAW. So while Jesus was on Earth, He was following The Law 100% PERFECT. Why is that important Ugo ? I'm VERY glad you asked, you see in those times The Jews had laws to practice, by following these laws they could live Godly lives. They didn't do this very well...in fact NO ONE did. Therefore anyone who went in violation of those laws had to be put to death. Why did they have to die Ugo ? Because during the Old Testament, The Jews were living under a theocratic system (which is a system of Government ran by God). So basically God is Justice and God is Law. Now when God sent Jesus to the world He sent us THE PERFECT MAN, Jesus was THE LIVING WORD of God which ultimately makes Jesus THE WALKING LAW.

As Jesus was the living embodiment of God's Word/Law He was made to be the PERFECT sacrifice. Since Jesus kept the Law, The Law was fulfilled through Him, so when He died, The Law was finished with Him. The Law was NOT DESTROYED, it was completed. Ugo, That makes no sense ! Okay, let me explain differently.

You and I sign a contract. The Contract states that A Man named John will come to your house and clean your gutters. John will show up at 5pm on your porch, he will have red hair, a Linkin Park T-Shirt, Black pants, and Blue flip-flops. So you sign the contract.

The VERY next day, someone rings your door bell, you answer the door and you see a man standing there, with red hair, a Linkin Park T-Shirt, Black pants and Blue flip-flops. You would be able to clearly come to the conclusion that this man is John. So this man goes and cleans your gutters. When he finishes cleaning your gutters, he leaves and goes on about his business.

Now let's back up, the contract you and I had with each other involved John cleaning your gutters, SO, that contract was NOT DESTROYED, the contract was FULFILLED ! John did what the contract stated ! Once he DID what he was Contracted to do, you and I are NO LONGER bound by THAT CONTRACT, because John FINISHED IT ! John did NOT DESTROY the Contract HE FULFILLED IT !

This is how Matthew 5:17 works. The Law was our Contract between us and God, and Jesus FULFILLED that Contract ! Anyways, I hope you all understand this and I hope you all continue to pray about this and correct me if I'm wrong in some areas. Let me know. Peace in Christ n_n !

Also see: http://www.carm.org/bible-difficulties/matthew-mark/did-jesus-abolish-law-or-not