The Persecution of Women in the Church

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I don't think we've approached it from a macro historical view as proposed by CH ... beginning w/ the Church fathers ....

Again the thread took a turn when the patrolmen "smelled a rat" in their opinions

When you've got a guy posting tripe on an Apostolic forum, and pushing the idea that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God in its entirety...

Claiming to know the Bible like "the back of [his] hand," and yet making outrageous and false statements about how paul spoke so many times just from his own opinion, questioning the book of Timothy even being in the canon...

Then yes, there is a rat that is reeking pretty bad.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

When you've got a guy posting tripe on an Apostolic forum, and pushing the idea that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God in its entirety...

Claiming to know the Bible like "the back of [his] hand," and yet making outrageous and false statements about how paul spoke so many times just from his own opinion, questioning the book of Timothy even being in the canon...

Then yes, there is a rat that is reeking pretty bad.

Please do not think your opinions are canon.

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

When you've got a guy posting tripe on an Apostolic forum, and pushing the idea that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God in its entirety...

Claiming to know the Bible like "the back of [his] hand," and yet making outrageous and false statements about how paul spoke so many times just from his own opinion, questioning the book of Timothy even being in the canon...

Then yes, there is a rat that is reeking pretty bad.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Please do not think your opinions are canon.

Knowing CS, I doubt he thinks that Daniel, but the fact is I picked up on what he did even before it was mentioned.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Felicity

Knowing CS, I doubt he thinks that Daniel, but the fact is I picked up on what he did even before it was mentioned.

Thank you.

I don't think the pontifications and criticisms of the Church are all that impacting coming from a man who has this opinion about the Word of God.

Color me unimpressed.

I really didn't think Daniel was so far gone that he would align himself with that kind of thinking.

[Newman]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

Thank you.

I don't think the pontifications and criticisms of the Church are all that impacting coming from a man who has this opinion about the Word of God.

I actually have a hard time relating to the idea that attacking the position of the early church fathers (the forerunners of the Catholic Church) is the equivilent of attacking "The Church."

I found CH's point of view that it takes a great mother or great grandmother to produce a great man the more interesting thought to consider. I wish someone else could have ran with that....

Can a man became great if his mother or grandmother ain't? Can a great father make up for a bad mother? Is the woman indeed the heart of the home? Is it true that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world?

What does Scripture show and tell us?

[Felicity]

Originally Posted by Newman

I actually have a hard time relating to the idea that attacking the position of the early church fathers (the forerunners of the Catholic Church) is the equivilent of attacking "The Church."

I found CH's point of view that it takes a great mother or great grandmother to produce a great man the more interesting thought to consider. I wish someone else could have ran with that....

Can a man became great if his mother or grandmother ain't? Can a great father make up for a bad mother? Is the woman indeed the heart of the home? Is it true that the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world?

What does Scripture show and tell us?

Perhaps someone could start a new thread because I agree that it could make for great discussion.

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Please do not think your opinions are canon.

Another meaningless comment.

Daniel, you would defend the devil himself if he registered here and attacked Apostolic doctrine and ministry.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

Here is a great truth.

A pastor I preached for once as a young married man gave me a piece of advice about relationships that I have never forgotten.

He said, "Boy, if you want sweet, be sweet."

Originally Posted by Coonskinner

Another meaningless comment.

Daniel, you would defend the devil himself if he registered here and attacked Apostolic doctrine and ministry.

Another post that reflects a policeman and pharisee-saturated attitude.

Some of us are wearisome that a handful believe that this forum is a church... that we must somehow submit the the spiritual authority of overseers and their twisted view of TRUTH.

You are only sweet to those that agree w/ you. When they somehow challenge your dogma the Coondog comes out.

Forums are places of discussion ... a place to opine ... not shrines that agree w/ you and ... be submitted to a barrage of Inquisition-like castigations.

Your weak attempts to somehow monopolize the term Apostolic is just that a feeble attempt.

The predictable devices to define and pigeon-hole CrazyH are only based on the perceptions of a shrinking minority....

Yet you continue to marginalize and attack him even when he said things to the contrary.

CrazyH, spoke in general terms about a subject that should be important to all of us .... the priesthood of all believers. I submit CrazyH is as Apostolic as the rest of us.

I must admit, however, that I enjoy seeing you post in the typical dogmatic, duplicitous, reactionary mode .... because well .... at least your posting.

[Barb]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Another post that reflects a policeman and pharisee-saturated attitude.

Some of us are wearisome that a handful believe that this forum is a church... that we must somehow submit the the spiritual authority of overseers and their twisted view of TRUTH.

You are only sweet to those that agree w/ you. When they somehow challenge your dogma the Coondog comes out.

Forums are places of discussion ... a place to opine ... not shrines that agree w/ you and be submitted to a barrage of Inquistion-like castigations.

Your weak attempts to somehow monopolize the term Apostolic is just that a feeble attempt.

The predictable devices to define and pigeon-hole CrazyH are only based on the perceptions of a shrinking minority....

Yet you continue to marginalize and attack him even when he said things to the contrary.

CrazyH, spoke in general terms about a subject that should be important to all of us .... the priesthood of all believers. CrazyH is as Apostolic as the rest of us.

I must admit, however, that I enjoy seeing you post in the typical dogmatic, duplicitous, reactionary mode .... because well .... at least your posting.

Daniel, you are so wrong about Coonskinner...I cannot begin to tell you, hon...

[Coonskinner]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Another post that reflects a policeman and pharisee-saturated attitude.

Some of us are wearisome that a handful believe that this forum is a church... that we must somehow submit the the spiritual authority of overseers and their twisted view of TRUTH.

You are only sweet to those that agree w/ you. When they somehow challenge your dogma the Coondog comes out.

Forums are places of discussion ... a place to opine ... not shrines that agree w/ you and ... be submitted to a barrage of Inquisition-like castigations.

Your weak attempts to somehow monopolize the term Apostolic is just that a feeble attempt.

The predictable devices to define and pigeon-hole CrazyH are only based on the perceptions of a shrinking minority....

Yet you continue to marginalize and attack him even when he said things to the contrary.

CrazyH, spoke in general terms about a subject that should be important to all of us .... the priesthood of all believers. I submit CrazyH is as Apostolic as the rest of us.

I must admit, however, that I enjoy seeing you post in the typical dogmatic, duplicitous, reactionary mode .... because well .... at least your posting.

Another post that reflects a policeman and pharisee-saturated attitude.

You often make this policeman accusation; I am not a moderator here, just a poster. But your loathing for the "policeman" reflects an attitude Paul mentioned:

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

Some of us are wearisome that a handful believe that this forum is a church... that we must somehow submit the the spiritual authority of overseers and their twisted view of TRUTH.

Believe me, I know this is no church. And I would like to ask you to point out the post where I have ever, even once, attempted to get someone to submit to me as a spiritual authority. It isn't here. A false and baseless accusation.

This is a forum, however, and it does have rules. One of those rules deals with the prohibiting of promoting false doctrine, such as the idea that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God. If you don't like the rules, tough luck. I don't like some of them, but I follow them if I want to remain a poster here. Others have to do the same.

You are only sweet to those that agree w/ you. When they somehow challenge your dogma the Coondog comes out.

Another false and baseless accusation. I could list a number of posters that I don't agree with very much, but have a friendly relationship with. CC1, Reformed Dave, Felicity, ILG, Heavenly One, Pianoman, Maple Leaf, Rico, and the list goes on. Nice attempt to categorize to marginalize there.

The predictable devices to define and pigeon-hole CrazyH are only based on the perceptions of a shrinking minority....

Yet you continue to marginalize and attack him even when he said things to the contrary.

Daniel, his views about the canon of Scripture are in every way relevant to the discussion. They also put him in violation of the rules of the forum when he started promoting them. Why on earth do you want to defend something so far outside truth and right-thinking? Eroding away at the very Scripture itself? That is a new low in associations for you, Dan. Think about that, Brother. You don't want to go there.

I must admit, however, that I enjoy seeing you post in the typical dogmatic, duplicitous, reactionary mode .... because well .... at least your posting.

Daniel, dogmatic and reactionary are fine, because they are subjective terms.

But duplicitous?

This is the second time on this thread that you have questioned my honesty, and that is a character attack. I have a policy of never reporting posts where I am attacked. I will rarely report a post where someone else is, but not myself. And this time will be no exception.

But I do want to point out for the sake of others who may be reading our little tussle here that you will stoop to this level. I am not upset because I know the facts, and I have not been dishonest or just used "rhetoric" as you said earlier.

But anyway, there it is.

Have a great day.