The Girl(s)

[Fresh Air]

If you read the Streeter's blog, they say that people told him about the rule they had about no counseling for more than 1/2 hour with a female, and he said "I made that rule, I can break it."

I read every word on that blog more than once. And I certainly agreed with a fair amount of it. My point is that when the pastor violated that rule nobody but Tim/Lisa cared, apparently. The whole idea that the pastor can counsel a woman about sexual things, period, is hugely problematic and has zero scriptural support. But he did that with dozens of women, apparently, including many, many teenagers. Their whole concept of counseling is warped.

 

[prophet]

Not one word of this post is relevant, in light of the revealed transcripts.  Jude is written to warn us of these perverts, who sexualize the Gospel.  Cain, Balaam, Korah...that's the crowd Dr.Shaft runs with.  If you can read the 'as the angels ministered to Jesus in the Garden' line, and ever again consider Shaft to be anything other than a perverted, stalking, manipulative molester, corrupted through to the core...than don't you ever join the ministry!

Anishinabe

Agreed. Someone asked me a few months ago what I thought JS should do when he got out. I said then he ought never be allowed to pastor, or to teach in a Bible college again, but maybe he could preach somewhere, somehow. After reading the prosecution memo that contained those blasphemously manipulative letters I changed my mind. He should never be allowed to stand up in front of anybody with a Bible in his hand again - ever. He needs permanently muted from ever sharing his thoughts regarding Scripture.

Ok.  I take back my response to your initial reaction back then. I thank God that those transcripts opened your eyes.  I did note, however, that you brought up the error of men counseling women, and God help anyone who can't grasp that!
  Did you ever hear Jack describe how Cindy would 'debrief' him after every counseling session he had with a lady.  He seemed very uncomfortable, trying to teach this 'doctrine', that the husband should counsel the young lady, but then unload emotionally on his wife afterwards. He taught this in a satelite class in the Walker Building, on a Sunday evening before Church. Ulzana and I took it, together.  It really seemed weird at the time, and put me in caution mode, when he became pastor.  We talked about it often, as the heresy waxed worse and worse.
  His worst stunt is gonna really shock some, unless they paid attention to his 'counselling success stories' (word for word from Church Ed notes : ) .  The 'jesus's' in the 'garden' of prison need 'angels' to 'minister' to them. 
'If we don't reach out to the homosexuals, who will?'  He once said, after relaying stories of counseling a child-raping queer.
His tone of sneering at the rest of us, who the sicko couldn't have come to for counsel, let me know that the haughty Sodomite had rubbed of on him.  Sodom's destruction being pride, don't be shocked when the Sinister Minister is heard to be officiating gay marriages and such inside- he is legally able to do so.

Anishinabe

 

[ifbteaparty]

Boomer and I disagree on that verse. It says that in the image of God created He him. Male and female created he them. There is a DISTINCTION between the two. I Corinthians gives the SAME distinction and further explains the verse in Genesis. I respectfully disagree with him.

The distinction made between male and female in Genesis 1:27 is in reference to their sexes. The whole verse describes how God created Man(kind).
      1.  God created man(kind) - God created the human race beginning with Adam & Eve.
      2.  God created man(kind) in His own image.
      3.  When God created mankind in His own image, He created male and female (in His own image).

1 Corinthians 11:7 does not refute the clear evidence of Genesis 1:27 for the following reasons:
      1.  The verse states that the man is the image and glory of God, but that the woman is the glory of man. It does not say anything about who's image                     
              the woman is made in.
                    - Man is the IMAGE and glory of God, but woman is the _____________ glory of man. (Does not say image. That exclusion speaks volumes.)
      2.  The surrounding context does mention that the woman was made of and for the man (vv 8-9). This fact does not address what image the woman is
              made in. Some would say she is made in man's image because she was formed from Adam's rib, but that logic would lead one to conclude that Adam,
              who was formed from the dust of the ground, bears the image of dirt rather than God.
      3.  It is of the utmost importance to pay attention to what the Bible does say. It is equally important to notice what the Bible does not say.
              1 Corinthians 11 does not say that woman were not created in God's image.
[/quote

So because the Bible does not say that the woman is created in the image of God, we can for sure conclude that she is? There are two clear verses that describe male and female genders and neither of them say that the woman is the image of God, but because they don't say they are not the image of God, we are suppose to believe that they are? That doesn't seem like good logic to base a fact upon.

 

[Boomer]

Boomer and I disagree on that verse. It says that in the image of God created He him. Male and female created he them. There is a DISTINCTION between the two. I Corinthians gives the SAME distinction and further explains the verse in Genesis. I respectfully disagree with him.

The distinction made between male and female in Genesis 1:27 is in reference to their sexes. The whole verse describes how God created Man(kind).
      1.  God created man(kind) - God created the human race beginning with Adam & Eve.
      2.  God created man(kind) in His own image.
      3.  When God created mankind in His own image, He created male and female (in His own image).

1 Corinthians 11:7 does not refute the clear evidence of Genesis 1:27 for the following reasons:
      1.  The verse states that the man is the image and glory of God, but that the woman is the glory of man. It does not say anything about who's image                     
              the woman is made in.
                    - Man is the IMAGE and glory of God, but woman is the _____________ glory of man. (Does not say image. That exclusion speaks volumes.)
      2.  The surrounding context does mention that the woman was made of and for the man (vv 8-9). This fact does not address what image the woman is
              made in. Some would say she is made in man's image because she was formed from Adam's rib, but that logic would lead one to conclude that Adam,
              who was formed from the dust of the ground, bears the image of dirt rather than God.
      3.  It is of the utmost importance to pay attention to what the Bible does say. It is equally important to notice what the Bible does not say.
              1 Corinthians 11 does not say that woman were not created in God's image.

So because the Bible does not say that the woman is created in the image of God, we can for sure conclude that she is? There are two clear verses that describe male and female genders and neither of them say that the woman is the image of God, but because they don't say they are not the image of God, we are suppose to believe that they are? That doesn't seem like good logic to base a fact upon.

Genesis 1:27 clearly states that male and female are created in the image of God. 1 Corinthians 11 does not refute that fact.

 

[lnf]

Thank you, redeemed, for saying that.  What I find equally shocking and so very, very sad is that criticism has been expressed toward one of the ladies because she is passionate in her defense of abuse victims.  Of course she is passionate about that!  No one understands any better than she does that the damage doesn't magically disappear when the abuse stops.  If we were wise, we would listen to what she has to say with a wide-open heart.  She has much to teach us about what it looks like to be truly compassionate toward victims of abuse. 

 

[BALAAM]

If you read the Streeter's blog, they say that people told him about the rule they had about no counseling for more than 1/2 hour with a female, and he said "I made that rule, I can break it."

I read every word on that blog more than once. And I certainly agreed with a fair amount of it. My point is that when the pastor violated that rule nobody but Tim/Lisa cared, apparently. The whole idea that the pastor can counsel a woman about sexual things, period, is hugely problematic and has zero scriptural support. But he did that with dozens of women, apparently, including many, many teenagers. Their whole concept of counseling is warped.

Tom, will you explain what you mean here? I tend to agree with you but expound a little on how you feel that their concept of counseling is warped.

 

[Fresh Air]

Tom, will you explain what you mean here? I tend to agree with you but expound a little on how you feel that their concept of counseling is warped.

If I have time today, I'll put it on the counseling thread.

 

[Torrent v.2]

If you read the Streeter's blog, they say that people told him about the rule they had about no counseling for more than 1/2 hour with a female, and he said "I made that rule, I can break it."

I read every word on that blog more than once. And I certainly agreed with a fair amount of it. My point is that when the pastor violated that rule nobody but Tim/Lisa cared, apparently. The whole idea that the pastor can counsel a woman about sexual things, period, is hugely problematic and has zero scriptural support. But he did that with dozens of women, apparently, including many, many teenagers. Their whole concept of counseling is warped.

I tend to agree. The idea that you can actually counsel someone in 5 minutes is ludicrous. I have heard stories of hundreds of people waiting in line to see Hyles or Schaap for hours and to pour their heart out and be given some 2 minute slap on the back, "Do more soul winning" or something similar, answer only to leave and think they received counseling.

 

[ifbteaparty]

Boomer and I disagree on that verse. It says that in the image of God created He him. Male and female created he them. There is a DISTINCTION between the two. I Corinthians gives the SAME distinction and further explains the verse in Genesis. I respectfully disagree with him.

The distinction made between male and female in Genesis 1:27 is in reference to their sexes. The whole verse describes how God created Man(kind).
      1.  God created man(kind) - God created the human race beginning with Adam & Eve.
      2.  God created man(kind) in His own image.
      3.  When God created mankind in His own image, He created male and female (in His own image).

1 Corinthians 11:7 does not refute the clear evidence of Genesis 1:27 for the following reasons:
      1.  The verse states that the man is the image and glory of God, but that the woman is the glory of man. It does not say anything about who's image                     
              the woman is made in.
                    - Man is the IMAGE and glory of God, but woman is the _____________ glory of man. (Does not say image. That exclusion speaks volumes.)
      2.  The surrounding context does mention that the woman was made of and for the man (vv 8-9). This fact does not address what image the woman is
              made in. Some would say she is made in man's image because she was formed from Adam's rib, but that logic would lead one to conclude that Adam,
              who was formed from the dust of the ground, bears the image of dirt rather than God.
      3.  It is of the utmost importance to pay attention to what the Bible does say. It is equally important to notice what the Bible does not say.
              1 Corinthians 11 does not say that woman were not created in God's image.

So because the Bible does not say that the woman is created in the image of God, we can for sure conclude that she is? There are two clear verses that describe male and female genders and neither of them say that the woman is the image of God, but because they don't say they are not the image of God, we are suppose to believe that they are? That doesn't seem like good logic to base a fact upon.

Genesis 1:27 clearly states that male and female are created in the image of God. 1 Corinthians 11 does not refute that fact.

It does not clearly say it in Genesis. You have to bring in Hebrew poetry to come to that conclusion. If God would have wanted to say it, I think He would have. And both in Genesis and Corinthians, it is WRITTEN that man was created in the image of God and neither time is it said of the woman.

 

[patriotic]

Boomer and I disagree on that verse. It says that in the image of God created He him. Male and female created he them. There is a DISTINCTION between the two. I Corinthians gives the SAME distinction and further explains the verse in Genesis. I respectfully disagree with him.

The distinction made between male and female in Genesis 1:27 is in reference to their sexes. The whole verse describes how God created Man(kind).
      1.  God created man(kind) - God created the human race beginning with Adam & Eve.
      2.  God created man(kind) in His own image.
      3.  When God created mankind in His own image, He created male and female (in His own image).

1 Corinthians 11:7 does not refute the clear evidence of Genesis 1:27 for the following reasons:
      1.  The verse states that the man is the image and glory of God, but that the woman is the glory of man. It does not say anything about who's image                     
              the woman is made in.
                    - Man is the IMAGE and glory of God, but woman is the _____________ glory of man. (Does not say image. That exclusion speaks volumes.)
      2.  The surrounding context does mention that the woman was made of and for the man (vv 8-9). This fact does not address what image the woman is
              made in. Some would say she is made in man's image because she was formed from Adam's rib, but that logic would lead one to conclude that Adam,
              who was formed from the dust of the ground, bears the image of dirt rather than God.
      3.  It is of the utmost importance to pay attention to what the Bible does say. It is equally important to notice what the Bible does not say.
              1 Corinthians 11 does not say that woman were not created in God's image.

So because the Bible does not say that the woman is created in the image of God, we can for sure conclude that she is? There are two clear verses that describe male and female genders and neither of them say that the woman is the image of God, but because they don't say they are not the image of God, we are suppose to believe that they are? That doesn't seem like good logic to base a fact upon.

Genesis 1:27 clearly states that male and female are created in the image of God. 1 Corinthians 11 does not refute that fact.

It does not clearly say it in Genesis. You have to bring in Hebrew poetry to come to that conclusion. If God would have wanted to say it, I think He would have. And both in Genesis and Corinthians, it is WRITTEN that man was created in the image of God and neither time is it said of the woman.

While you believe that, I'll just keep believing that women were made in God's image. 

You've not convinced me, and frankly, it really doesn't matter.  As gonebutnotforgotten often said, "WHO CARES?????" 

(I miss gbnf.....and Teri in NC.....and SLG.....and Rebecca's Rants......and many others.......)

 

[myeyesareopen]

The fact that he cannot comprehend that "man" means all humankind, which is represented by both sexes, should tell us it is futile to try and reason with him. Wipe the dust from the feet and move on...

 

[Boomer]

Boomer and I disagree on that verse. It says that in the image of God created He him. Male and female created he them. There is a DISTINCTION between the two. I Corinthians gives the SAME distinction and further explains the verse in Genesis. I respectfully disagree with him.

The distinction made between male and female in Genesis 1:27 is in reference to their sexes. The whole verse describes how God created Man(kind).
      1.  God created man(kind) - God created the human race beginning with Adam & Eve.
      2.  God created man(kind) in His own image.
      3.  When God created mankind in His own image, He created male and female (in His own image).

1 Corinthians 11:7 does not refute the clear evidence of Genesis 1:27 for the following reasons:
      1.  The verse states that the man is the image and glory of God, but that the woman is the glory of man. It does not say anything about who's image                     
              the woman is made in.
                    - Man is the IMAGE and glory of God, but woman is the _____________ glory of man. (Does not say image. That exclusion speaks volumes.)
      2.  The surrounding context does mention that the woman was made of and for the man (vv 8-9). This fact does not address what image the woman is
              made in. Some would say she is made in man's image because she was formed from Adam's rib, but that logic would lead one to conclude that Adam,
              who was formed from the dust of the ground, bears the image of dirt rather than God.
      3.  It is of the utmost importance to pay attention to what the Bible does say. It is equally important to notice what the Bible does not say.
              1 Corinthians 11 does not say that woman were not created in God's image.

So because the Bible does not say that the woman is created in the image of God, we can for sure conclude that she is? There are two clear verses that describe male and female genders and neither of them say that the woman is the image of God, but because they don't say they are not the image of God, we are suppose to believe that they are? That doesn't seem like good logic to base a fact upon.

Genesis 1:27 clearly states that male and female are created in the image of God. 1 Corinthians 11 does not refute that fact.

It does not clearly say it in Genesis. You have to bring in Hebrew poetry to come to that conclusion. If God would have wanted to say it, I think He would have. And both in Genesis and Corinthians, it is WRITTEN that man was created in the image of God and neither time is it said of the woman.

No Hebrew poetry involved here. Just plain, straight-forward language. Don't take my word for it though. Let's see what some good commentators have to say about it...

"He made woman the same day He made man, as He did both sexes of all other living creatures; also He made woman, as well as man, "in the image of God;" forming the male of the matter of the earth, and the female afterwards of the male, of which a more particular account is reserved for the following chapter."
      -Bps. Patrick and Hall, Dr. Wells. (Taken from the British Family Bible commentary)

"So God, accordingly, created man, after his own image; both in respect of his spiritual soul, and of this integrity, and holiness, and righteousness, wherewith he was indued: he created them in both sexes, both male and female; forming the male of the matter of earth, and the female afterwards of the male."
      -Hall's Explication of Hard Texts

"Male and female created he them. He made woman the same day he made man; as he did both sexes of all other living creatures, and as he made herbs and plants with seed in them, to propagate their species on the same day they were produced. It is plain by this, also, that woman, as well as man, was made in the image of God. And it seems to be pertinently observed by Abarbinel, that Moses here again uses the word create (and that three times) to denote the original of human souls; which are not made out of pre-existent matter, as our bodies are; but by the power of God, when they had no being at all."
      -Patrick, Lowth, Whitby, and Lowman Commentary

"The male and female are both comprehended in the word man, as is expressed, Ge 1:27, together with their posterity."
      -Matthew Pool

Now I may be totally ignorant here, but in all of my life I have never heard any serious Bible student claim that women are not created in God's image. I have never read a commentary that advanced that theory. I have only heard and read that God created man in His image, and that He created man as male and female in His image.

The typical internet response to me posting multiple commentary links to support my point is that I "don't think for myself and just follow 'Dr. So-in-so' to see what I believe." The opposite is true. I already believed that women are created in God's image, but I feel good about my belief because "In the multitude of counselors there is safety."

If you are driving down the road, and all the other cars are on the wrong side, you have to stop and think that it is possible that you are the one on the wrong side.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

TeaParty,

You believe your interpretation of Scripture is always correct.  Always.  You have a a very demeaning and manipulative and sexist paradigm about women.  When people try pointing out your shortcomings, you attack or refuse to learn or defer the correction to someone else.

Guess what?  These are the exact same character traits of a young Jack Schaap.  Beware young man.  Beware.

 

[prophet]

TeaParty,

You believe your interpretation of Scripture is always correct.  Always.  You have a a very demeaning and manipulative and sexist paradigm about women.  When people try pointing out your shortcomings, you attack or refuse to learn or defer the correction to someone else.

Guess what?  These are the exact same character traits of a young Jack Schaap.  Beware young man.  Beware.

Don't put that on him, BC.  He is suffering from the doublemindedness of being an IFB.  The F and the B can't coincide, so you are driven to madness, or compromise.  He wants to be a Bible purist, but superimposes fundy junk teaching over it.  That's when anger sets in. When HE is  challenged, but thinks it's the Bible that is being challenged, he feels 'righteous indignation'.  Many times it has been justified, but doublemindedness won't let him discern when he has adapted to extra- biblical teaching.  This is the malady that is plaguing the well-intentioned IFB believers.
    The solution is a long and painful self examination, done by the washing of the Word, and requires you to listen to your critics, to see if perhaps God sent them to rebuke you.  I don't believe that IFBTP is a devil-possessed  charlatan, like Schaap, but rather a typical young Believer, being drowned in a mixed-multitude movement, and relegated to ineffectiveness.

Anishinabe

 

[myeyesareopen]

The solution is a long and painful self examination, done by the washing of the Word, and requires you to listen to your critics, to see if perhaps God sent them to rebuke you.

Very well stated, prophet. It seems at times I can actually feel the IFB-FBC filters through which I screened every thought or idea melting away...it's amazing.

 

[ifbteaparty]

TeaParty,

You believe your interpretation of Scripture is always correct.  Always.  You have a a very demeaning and manipulative and sexist paradigm about women.  When people try pointing out your shortcomings, you attack or refuse to learn or defer the correction to someone else.

Guess what?  These are the exact same character traits of a young Jack Schaap.  Beware young man.  Beware.

I have not been attacking anyone. I may disagree, but I don't hate anyone here. When I HAVE BEEN ATTACKED, I have given Scripture to show why I believe something.

As for the comment you made about me being degrading to women, I think that if you asked my wife, my sister, my mother, and EVERY SINGLE LADY IN OUR CHURCH, I would bet $100 that you would get a different story than the one you just told.

 

[ifbteaparty]

TeaParty,

You believe your interpretation of Scripture is always correct.  Always.  You have a a very demeaning and manipulative and sexist paradigm about women.  When people try pointing out your shortcomings, you attack or refuse to learn or defer the correction to someone else.

Guess what?  These are the exact same character traits of a young Jack Schaap.  Beware young man.  Beware.

Why are you lecturing me and leaving out others who have been less than kind to me?

 

[ifbteaparty]

TeaParty,

You believe your interpretation of Scripture is always correct.  Always.  You have a a very demeaning and manipulative and sexist paradigm about women.  When people try pointing out your shortcomings, you attack or refuse to learn or defer the correction to someone else.

Guess what?  These are the exact same character traits of a young Jack Schaap.  Beware young man.  Beware.

I have not been attacking anyone. I may disagree, but I don't hate anyone here. When I HAVE BEEN ATTACKED, I have given Scripture to show why I believe something.

As for the comment you made about me being degrading to women, I think that if you asked my wife, my sister, my mother, and EVERY SINGLE LADY IN OUR CHURCH, I would bet $100 that you would get a different story than the one you just told.

how many would tell a different story?..... one of them?..  all of them?.. ...  would they all agree with you and say they believe they are not made in the image of God?....
[/quote

Why would I bet $100 that they would tell you that I treated them with respect if only one of them would say that? I have several women I work with...they would say the same. I have had several female bosses, and I have not had any problems with them.

 

[myeyesareopen]

Why would I bet $100 that they would tell you that I treated them with respect if only one of them would say that? I have several women I work with...they would say the same. I have had several female bosses, and I have not had any problems with them.

If you were to reveal your true self to them they might not feel so warm and fuzzy toward you. Go ahead: tell every woman in your life that while she is not made in the image of God, you are. She will find you as intellectually repulsive as I do and will realize your 'respect' is superficial, thus insincere.

 

[ifbteaparty]

I don't lose any sleep at night because people agree or disagree with me. Everyone has a right to their own opinion, and a right to be wrong.