Simple Simon Sez Sisters Sit: GCMER's Request

Scripture
Scripture

September 27th, 2016, 4:46 pm #21

Rick Warren has so many ideas that you are bound to like some of them.

He goes so many directions that you're never sure where he is.



Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

September 27th, 2016, 4:53 pm #22

Rick Warren is encouraging Rancor to evangelize the world.
Rick Warren was right about predestination. Jude picks up on the instrumental-trinitarian-perverted (the absolute triad) at Mount Sinai which was beyond redemption for that generation. Jude warns that they are FOREORDAINED.

Dave and all of the other multipersonalities MAY not be able to read the Word anymore. You don't fool around with God: if you do not Love the TRUTH or the WORD then He just sends strong delusions. C. Leonard Allen and the rest of the foreordained accuses God with being ECSTATIC. They think that GNOSTICS are dopey people who love KNOWLEDGE from God: they have visions and dreams and hear voices which PROVES to them that THEY speak "beyond the sacred pages" and YOU do not.

"Knowing for the Gnostic went beyond mental recall; it meant active reunion with one's divine source through all kinds of ecstatic experience--dreams, visions, speaking in tongues, etc. In this return to the divine source, one is liberated from the bodily prison." (Roetzel, Calvin J., The Letters of Paul, John Knox Press, Atlanta, p. 83

The ladies at LU and many once-churches of Christ can show you how to do that by SPIRITUAL FORMATION. They make you pay to be strongly deluded.

Maybe Dave can get united with his multipersonalities? You know: Nimrod was a man of 50 names.

Ecstasy is a KOMA which is "Our musical team can lead you into the presence of a god to KNOW him personally."

kōma , atos, to, (perh. cogn. with keimai, koimaō)
A.deep sleep, “autō . . malakon peri kōma kalupsa” Il.14.359; “ē me . . malakon peri kōm' ekalupsen” Od.18.201; “kakon de he kōma kaluptei” Hes.Th.798; “aithussomenōn de phullōn k. katarrei” Sapph.4; “hupnou k.” Theoc.Ep.3.6: metaph., of the effect of music, Pi.P.1.12.
2. Medic., lethargic state, coma, “kōma sunekhes, oukh hupnōdes”


Paul warned against the MAD WOMEN OF CORINTH because only women engaged in singing and playing instruments and driving themselves out of their minds and claiming at A god was speaking to them. Almost never did a male sing and play an instrument at the same time.

Dave should sign up: my old group in Murfreesbory got Purpose Driven and fulfilled Jude's warning: even claiming that they are predestined. ALL of them music is the mark of FIRE DRIVEN churches.
Quote
Like
Share

Rancor
Rancor

September 28th, 2016, 12:23 am #23

Rick Warren is encouraging Rancor to evangelize the world.
Question: "Complementarianism vs. egalitarianism—which view is biblically correct?"

Answer: Summarized by "The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood," complementarianism is the viewpoint that God restricts women from serving in church leadership roles and instead calls women to serve in equally important, but complementary roles. Summarized by "Christians for Biblical Equality," egalitarianism is the viewpoint that there are no biblical gender-based restrictions on ministry in the church. With both positions claiming to be biblically based, it is crucially important to fully examine what exactly the Bible does say on the issue of complementarianism vs. egalitarianism.

Again, to summarize, on the one side are the egalitarians who believe there are no gender distinctions and that since we are all one in Christ, women and men are interchangeable when it comes to functional roles in leadership and in the household. The opposing view is held by those who refer to themselves as complementarians. The complementarian view believes in the essential equality of men and women as persons (i.e., as human beings created in God’s image), but complementarians hold to gender distinctions when it comes to functional roles in society, the church and the home.

An argument in favor of complementarianism can be made from 1 Timothy 2:9-15. The verse in particular that seems to argue against the egalitarian view is 1 Timothy 2:12, which reads, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” Paul makes a similar argument in 1 Corinthians 14 where he writes, “The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says” (1 Corinthians 14:34). Paul makes the argument that women are not allowed to teach and/or exercise authority over men within the church setting. Passages such as 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9 seem to limit church leadership "offices" to men, as well.

Egalitarianism essentially makes its case based on Galatians 3:28. In that verse Paul writes, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The egalitarian view argues that in Christ the gender distinctions that characterized fallen relationships have been removed. However, is this how Galatians 3:28 should be understood? Does the context warrant such an interpretation? It is abundantly clear that this interpretation does damage to the context of the verse. In Galatians, Paul is demonstrating the great truth of justification by faith alone and not by works (Galatians 2:16). In Galatians 3:15-29, Paul argues for justification on the differences between the law and the promise. Galatians 3:28 fits into Paul’s argument that all who are in Christ are Abraham’s offspring by faith and heirs to the promise (Galatians 3:29). The context of this passage makes it clear Paul is referring to salvation, not roles in the church. In other words, salvation is given freely to all without respect to external factors such as ethnicity, economic status, or gender. To stretch this context to also apply to gender roles in the church goes far beyond and outside of the argument Paul was making.

What is truly the crux of this argument, and what many egalitarians fail to understand, is that a difference in role does not equate to a difference in quality, importance, or value. Men and women are equally valued in God's sight and plan. Women are not inferior to men. Rather, God assigns different roles to men and women in the church and the home because that is how He designed us to function. The truth of differentiation and equality can be seen in the functional hierarchy within the Trinity (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:3). The Son submits to the Father, and the Holy Spirit submits to the Father and the Son. This functional submission does not imply an equivalent inferiority of essence; all three Persons are equally God, but they differ in their function. Likewise, men and women are equally human beings and equally share the image of God, but they have God-ordained roles and functions that mirror the functional hierarchy within the Trinity.


Gotquestions.org


Quote
Share

Rancor
Rancor

September 28th, 2016, 9:08 pm #24

[ze]

Examples
pronoun
1.
(occasionally used with a singular indefinite pronoun or singular noun antecedent in place of the definite masculine he or the definite feminine she):
My friend didn't want to go to the party, but ze ended up having a great time!
Origin of ze
Expand
1970-1975
1970-75; based on the German pronoun sie
Usage note
Expand
Gender-neutral pronouns have been proposed as far back as the mid-19th century, especially in connection with progressive ideas about women’s rights. More recently, the coinage and use of ze and other gender-neutral pronouns has been motivated by discussions about gender identity. Many gay, transgender, and gender-nonconforming individuals do not identify as male or female or do not want to be identified as either gender. Even so, use of ze as a gender-neutral singular third-person pronoun is quite limited, partly because of a general resistance toward replacing English pronouns. Pronouns belong to a small, closed class of words whose membership is relatively fixed.
Quote
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

September 28th, 2016, 9:55 pm #25

Simple Simon who made it to reading grade 6 understands that those LUSTING to replace vocational deacons with deaconesses or "special servants" have neither ROLE NOR DOLE. There are no ROLES for the Worship Service because Jesus did not define a Worship Service but the sinful woman at the well understood Jesus to come to TELL US ALL THINGS. Jesus told her that worship ALREADY existed IN the spirit as it is devoted to THE TRUTH or THE WORD. It is not a PLACES or houses.

God ordained VOCATIONAL elders as the only Pastor-Teachers. Job one is to eject the cunning craftsmen or sophists: self-authoring preachers, singers or instrument players. That would enable the one another reading and discussing ONE-PIECE PATTERN because those ROLES are LYING IN WAIT TO DECEIVE.

Egalitarianism essentially makes its case based on Galatians 3:28. In that verse Paul writes, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.


No they do not: not being able to read they see "there is BOTH male and female." no, no, no it reads:

There is NEITHER male nor female. We both have ONE FATHER who is defined as our TEACHER. The emasculated theologians also deny baptism so they are of the THIRD KIND with no role:

Gal. 3:26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.
Gal. 3:27 For [Enim What I Mean is] as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Gal. 3:28 There is NEITHER Jew nor Greek, there is NEITHER bond nor free, there is NEITHER male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
Gal. 3:29 And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.


They go back to David and the warrior Levites and priests.
If you have demoted the vocational deacons and replaced them with female "ministers" meaning masters and have 20 Gentiles on the STIFF, are you obligated to hire 20 Jews? No.

If you have 20 free persons on the staff are you obligated to hire 20 slaves? No.
If you have 20 males who always performed females roles, are you obligated to hire 20 females who were always the oracles, singers, players, prostitute pagans?

NO TO BOTH CLASSES.
1. There are no burden laders hired to lade burdens: no Scribes or Pharisees, slaughter priests (heretics) or Levite noise makers (parasites).
2. There are NO female oracles of Apollon getting high on, gas, wine or music to gibber the messages for sale often tragically misleading according to history.

Paul told the men to pray that everyone be peaceful or quiet to prevent wrath or ORGY breaking out defined as the "theaters for holy entertainment."

Paul told the women to be silent and sedentary because they believed that their singing and playing brought on a MESSAGE from the Gods. She is to be silent in all of the silence passages because Jesus already has the role and He is still alive and king over His Kingdom which does not come with visible make-busy institutions;

1Tim. 2:5 For there is one God, [Theos]
and one MEDIATOR between God and men,
the MAN Christ Jesus;


Neither male nor female had a ROLE because the SINGULAR pattern for the assembly was-is:

1Tim. 2:4 Who will have all men to be saved [SAFE],
and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.


These same people say THERE IS NO PATTERN: we have just quoted the one-piece pattern.

The Truth is The Word, Logos, Regulative principle. It outlaws self-authoring speaking, singing, playing instruments, acting or anything but SPEAKING the Word which Jesus said is SPIRIT. There ARE no other roles for a staff. Candy stores sell candy and the Ekklesia or Assembly dispenses the WORD of God. Other people have their own ministry.

The ONLY spiritual covenant was made with God in Christ. From Genesis 49 we understand that Jacob cursed Levi and told us not to attend their assemblies or SYNAGOGUE. The synagogue was defined in the wilderness:

EXCLUSIVE of vocal or instrumental rejoicing or Rhetoric.
INCLUSIVE of Rest, Reading and Rehearsing to memorize the WORD of God.

Jesus "synagogued" with the disciples and Paul used synagogue words to define "gathering, coming together or assemblying."

Paul silenced the self pleasure or "placeo" which silences speaking, singing, playing instruments or anything which induces the laded burden or spiritual anxiety." Then the ONE PIECE PATTERN cannot be missed by a Disciple of Christ with A holy spirit. Now, I don't expect anyone to grasp this but:

Rom. 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

The continuing Holy Spirit Comforter is named "Jesus of Nazareth." He said "My Words are SPIRIT and LIFE." They are one of the ways church as SCRIPTURE READERS give COMFORT. The feminists and their emasculated dupes boast about imposing music to "UPSET YOUR COMFORT ZONES" to dominate you.

One another or Likeminded ELEMINATES any Role beyond the READER.

Rom. 15:5 Now the God of patience and consolation grant you to be likeminded one toward another according to Christ Jesus:
Rom. 15:6 That YOU may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.


And THAT is the only way to PRAISE God so we do not need a FEMALE WORSHIP MINISTER hired to be GLORIFIED.

NOT BOTH male and female but NEITHER male nor female. That pretty well rules out ANYONE who is not a male or female as having ANY role to ADORN the Word. Anyone who wants to get on the DOLE ROLE claiming that they can enhance the Word of God is defined as ANATHEMA. They cannot be redeemed and must be BURNED.

Eph. 2:16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
Eph. 2:17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
Eph. 2:18 For through him we BOTH have access by one Spirit unto the Father.


SO, we don't NEED any priestly or Levitical functions: We BOTH have access without any human MEDIATOR in song or sermon. Self exhibition of religious performing was defined as PROSTITUTION: it doesn't matter which body part you SELL in the name of God.

Now, go to the chalk board and write 100 times NEITHER male nor female. You deny and repudiate the LIBERTIES Jesus died to give US if you assume ANY religious roles named PARASITES. The Word of of God SCHOOL or REST does not need to build an OFFICE BUILDING to house the STAFF.

Last edited by Ken.Sublett on September 28th, 2016, 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Quote
Like
Share

Rancor
Rancor

September 29th, 2016, 1:32 am #26


If I am in a situation where I need to reveal comments using pronouns about Scripture, it is admissible to use the pronoun "ZE" meaning no gender. This is because Scripture will not reveal gender.

Donnie, Scripture and Bill, what do you think? "ZE" is not a slang word.
Quote
Share

Scripture
Scripture

September 29th, 2016, 2:36 am #27

We could forget below the belt issues and glorify the Word of God.

Then nothing would be "because" someone does not reveal gender, but would be a matter of a "Thus said the Lord."

It would be good to consider the truth of anyone's statement without passing judgment on their gender.

The use of "Ze" could a solution to this gender-obsessed generation.

"Man" used to refer to mankind. Today's generation gets bent out of shape since they take the word "man" literally. Up until this generation, "he" was the default word to use to refer to a generic person.

Follow your impulses, Rancor.



Quote
Share

Scripture
Scripture

September 29th, 2016, 2:50 am #28

Question: "Complementarianism vs. egalitarianism—which view is biblically correct?"

Answer: Summarized by "The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood," complementarianism is the viewpoint that God restricts women from serving in church leadership roles and instead calls women to serve in equally important, but complementary roles. Summarized by "Christians for Biblical Equality," egalitarianism is the viewpoint that there are no biblical gender-based restrictions on ministry in the church. With both positions claiming to be biblically based, it is crucially important to fully examine what exactly the Bible does say on the issue of complementarianism vs. egalitarianism.

Again, to summarize, on the one side are the egalitarians who believe there are no gender distinctions and that since we are all one in Christ, women and men are interchangeable when it comes to functional roles in leadership and in the household. The opposing view is held by those who refer to themselves as complementarians. The complementarian view believes in the essential equality of men and women as persons (i.e., as human beings created in God’s image), but complementarians hold to gender distinctions when it comes to functional roles in society, the church and the home.

An argument in favor of complementarianism can be made from 1 Timothy 2:9-15. The verse in particular that seems to argue against the egalitarian view is 1 Timothy 2:12, which reads, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” Paul makes a similar argument in 1 Corinthians 14 where he writes, “The women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says” (1 Corinthians 14:34). Paul makes the argument that women are not allowed to teach and/or exercise authority over men within the church setting. Passages such as 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9 seem to limit church leadership "offices" to men, as well.

Egalitarianism essentially makes its case based on Galatians 3:28. In that verse Paul writes, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” The egalitarian view argues that in Christ the gender distinctions that characterized fallen relationships have been removed. However, is this how Galatians 3:28 should be understood? Does the context warrant such an interpretation? It is abundantly clear that this interpretation does damage to the context of the verse. In Galatians, Paul is demonstrating the great truth of justification by faith alone and not by works (Galatians 2:16). In Galatians 3:15-29, Paul argues for justification on the differences between the law and the promise. Galatians 3:28 fits into Paul’s argument that all who are in Christ are Abraham’s offspring by faith and heirs to the promise (Galatians 3:29). The context of this passage makes it clear Paul is referring to salvation, not roles in the church. In other words, salvation is given freely to all without respect to external factors such as ethnicity, economic status, or gender. To stretch this context to also apply to gender roles in the church goes far beyond and outside of the argument Paul was making.

What is truly the crux of this argument, and what many egalitarians fail to understand, is that a difference in role does not equate to a difference in quality, importance, or value. Men and women are equally valued in God's sight and plan. Women are not inferior to men. Rather, God assigns different roles to men and women in the church and the home because that is how He designed us to function. The truth of differentiation and equality can be seen in the functional hierarchy within the Trinity (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:3). The Son submits to the Father, and the Holy Spirit submits to the Father and the Son. This functional submission does not imply an equivalent inferiority of essence; all three Persons are equally God, but they differ in their function. Likewise, men and women are equally human beings and equally share the image of God, but they have God-ordained roles and functions that mirror the functional hierarchy within the Trinity.


Gotquestions.org

Rancor will have to explain 1 Corinthian 11:16 that contentiousness can be avoided if we follow the "custom" or "practice" of the Roman/Hebrew culture.

Those who look carefully at this passage often conclude that the literal application of this passage (1 Corinthians 11:1-16) would lead the church of adopt real coverings for the head.

Add to his Paul's admonition that "not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way." Romans 14:13.

Gender neutral translations mutilate this passage since "brother's" is not gender neutral. Some translations may say a "church member way," or a "Christian's way."

Rancor can solve the problem by saying in "brother's or sister's way."

Or maybe he could say "he or she" rather than "ze."
Quote
Share

Rancor
Rancor

September 29th, 2016, 11:08 pm #29



What about it Ken?


Simple Simon Sez Ze's Stand

Sad day for Concerned Members...
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

September 30th, 2016, 3:34 am #30

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Is Rancor a "Ze"? [/color]
Quote
Like
Share