Total Pageviews

Sunday, September 27, 2009



Before I go on, I want to apologise for the rudeness I displayed in my last blogpost. So there you have it, I am sorry. Now back to the sermon.
Please open your bibles to 1 Timothy 2:9-15.
9I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, 10but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

11A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women[a] will be saved[b] through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

This passage right here, was the first ever "question" I had as a kid about the bible lol, I remember grandmomsy taking me to the pastor for him to answer this question. And to the best of my knowledge, that Pastor never answered my question.
My friend EDJ challenged me to come up with something contradictory in the New Testament, seeing as everything I've challenged so far has been from the old testament. So here we have Paul giving us, instructions for worship.
Paul from verse 10 says a woman should learn in "quietness" and "full submission". In verse 12, a woman is not permitted to "teach" or have "authority" over a man; She must be SILENT. Then in verse 13, he gives his reasons for why it should be so.
If you are a woman and you profess to be a christian, you should not be in a position of authority, at least you should not be in a position of authority over a man. One can infer that women can be authorities over other women/children but not over any man.
Now remember on Thursday night I told you guys about the argument I and my friends were having over the bible that stretched into the early hours of the morning. Well we touched on this subject and my friend said that all women Bishops/Pastors/Reverends are "SERVING GOD IN DISOBEDIENCE". I then asked him, are those women going to hell? My friend replied with a "Yes". I now asked again, so the people who attend a female pastor's church are all going to hell then? I mean if they are attending the church and they are being led by a woman, all the men in that church are headed to hell. My friend replied with another "yes". I was excited about that but not fully satisfied. Let us broaden this passage up a little bit, and take it into the corporate world etc, women in any position to hold authority over men are all going to hell. They are not permitted to be over any man, neither are they permitted to teach. So all female lecturers/CEOs/HighSchoolTeachers are all headed to "HELL". The question is, were those instructions to all WOMEN, or where they only to women who had aspirations to serve in positions in the church? If you say that they were only to women who had aspirations to serve in the church, then surely you would agree that the women who disobey the instructions blatantly are headed to hell. If you agree that the instructions were to all women, then again you would agree that every woman right now pursuing a degree in college so they can go "lord" it over any man whatsoever, every woman like that is going to "HELL"
There are those who will challenge this post and say that I should stop cherrypicking passages, I should read the whole biblical passage and understand it. They are correct and I have taken the liberty of reading the whole passage and I would post the passages before verse 9 but they are to long, but I assure you that those passages have nothing/have any bearing on the passages from Timothy I pointed out.You can read the rest of the passages here.1 Timothy 2:1-8

P.S - I have no problem with women serving in position of authority, or lording it over men.I am perfectly fine with that, but I mean the "bible" trumps all.I am honestly ashamed of some of these socalled christian women who blatantly ignore the instructions of the bible and act like that passage in the bible does not exist. I just discovered what "P.S" means today, I always use it but never understood what it meant. It's latin for Postscript or something like that lol.


Lady X said...

Tsk Tsk... What a pity...

I really do think most of these books have been doctored to fit certain ideals...

Anonymous said...

so i read from verses 1-8. and i love how he actually states in verse 7 that he is not lying.

In my opinion, a person will only say they aren't lying ONLY when they are lying. if u aint lying, u don't need to convince anybody.

The bible was written by men to force women into submission. Like many other MAN-MADE religions.

Anonymous said...

Well, i addressed this 'inferiority of women' in the bible on my blog

My theory is that, this is paul preaching , he is reflecting the times in which he was operating,

God does not see me as less than any man, paul has said a lot of sexist things but God's opinion of me is far more than that

nonny said...

Lmao... controversy, i really don't know why i am laughing. i think it is because i cannot argue against this.
you win this one....

Controversy said...

Noooooooooooooooooooooooo TTLLOLLA
Me and u go fight for this one o. Lai lai u are not just going to casually explain this away as being "Paul's opinion" and say that God's opinion is different. Whatever happened to God insluencin Paul ehn? and Please wat is to say that every book or verse/chapter paul wrote was not his own opinion? How do u determine that? What is the criteria? the criteria cannot be, "Oh ttolla does not agree with this one, so obviously it must not be from God". ttolla u better come back with a better answer hun, ur not going scot free on this one.

@ Lady X.
Thank u luv, i don't know what kind of ppl let this sexist talk into the bible.

@ anonymous.
Lol of cus it's a lie and it is definitely man made no doubt.

@ Nonny
Hahaha i wuv wuv wuv u, yayyyyyy hahahaha WIN 1 for we DEISTS

Controversy said...

But wait, ttolla am sorry just reread your comment. U said your "theory" when I took biology they told me a theory is a hypothesis, not backed by fact but by assumption. So u are assuming, but seeing as u agree that every scripture in the bible is "God Breathed" i will have to say that God agrees with Paul

Gentlemperor1 said...

Actually, I don't really know what to ttlolla said, "Paul is reflecting the time he was operating". Although it's kinda true but however, lol, inshort, me no know ooo, lol

Anonymous said...

Dude, please. How about considering the cultural context in which these Scriptures were written?

Timothy lived in a male-dominated era (never mind that we still do live in one, albeit it being much more subtle in our times).
It would have been considered scandalous for women to take up leadership roles in the church. Besides, being a disciple then involves plenty of travel, exposure to the enemies and other hostile conditions. Such a role would not have been considered appropriate for women in those times. Women were less educated than men, meaning they would have less experience preaching or teaching.

Additionally, in order to endear
itself to the pagan minorities they were trying to convert, the early Xtians adapted some of the teachings to the cultures of those people.

That cultural adaptation is nothing new. Xtianity has always been a very culturally adaptive religion which explains the many denominations we see today from the stoic Catholics to the loud Pentecostals, and it also explains its longevity and permeability.

Every culture (Western, African, Asian,etc) infuses elements of itself in Xtianity, which works as long the basic, universal tenet of the faith is not compromised - the basic tenet being salvation through the death of Christ.

Don't willfully forget that there were many female disciples and women in leadership roles - Dorcas, anybody? I mean, Mary Madgalene (gasp, a woman) was the first one to see Christ after he arose. Do you know how much harder it would have been for the men to believe her and still, God used her.

Bottom line, it's important to read the Bible with the idea of the cultural context in which it was written. Getting all hung up on these little details (which simply reflect the era in which the Scriptures were written) only distracts from the more important messages Xtianity has to offer.

Controversy said...

Oh ok so in this case we should take into account cultural context, but when i challenge "Jesus walking On water" u refuse to take into account cultural context in that case. Wat kind of buffonery is this? U either accept the thing as what it is, or u delegate the whole bible as a cultural book.
Maybe we should not obey the "ten commandments" or any other commandment in the bible seeing as the cultural context should be taken into consideration. Remember this is in the new testament, and christianity begins in the New testament. Instructions were given in the NT, u either accept/obey them or u disagree/disobey them. Don't try to explain it away using "CULTURAL CONTEXT"
Lol @ these things being little details, umm obviously they are not littlee details. if they were, they would not be in the "WORD OF GOD". It is a fact that a lot of "socalled christian women" disobey the instructions of God as recorded by paul.

EDJ said...

"they told me a theory is a hypothesis, not backed by fact but by assumption"

Err Controversy you need to fire your Biology teacher. Because a "theory" is a hypothesis backed by fact. A hypothesis is just a guess that needs to be supported with fact before being called a theory.

Now that the Biology lesson is over, I find it RIDICULOUS that one of your friends actually said the women in leadership positions would be going to hell.

It seems to me that some of the disciples sorta took off on their own tangents after Jesus died and used their positions as disciples to promote their own ideas.

Controversy said...

@ EDJ.
So umm so some of the disciples took off on a tangent.
How then do we determine what is the truth and what is a tangent? U cannot simply say just because u disagree with what Paul said, that it must not come from God. Afterall, if you believe 2 Timothy 3:16-17 where it says "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work"
Now if u disagree with this passage, then it's ok for u to disagree with the women not leading passage

Anonymous said...

Sweetie, I am not explaining it away. I am explaining it, period. You should spend more of your time working on finding a theory that gives you the answers you claim you want, and less time nitpicking at the theories that have worked for millions of people for over millions of years.

Controversy said...

Theories are differnt from LAWS.
U can make a theory and I can make another theory to disprove your theory. Oh please, ur telling me that i should check the "cultural context" of something that was written in the New Testament. Maybe we should all check the cultural context of the whole bible. What say u?
If it was any other passage in the NT u would be gushin over it, u finally see something u disagree with then u ask for us to check cultural context. Please God does not exist to say stuff that is pleasing to your ears.

EDJ said...

It IS difficult to determine which parts were for personal gain and which parts are "real".

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work"

Of course I disagree with that passage. Not all scripture is from God. If a bunch of men can sit around and decide which books should be in the various bible versions and which shouldn't. Then, I can damn well decide which parts of the bible are literal or not, and therefore make sense to me. God gave everyone free will for us to use it. If we weren't supposed to exercise personal judgment we would not have brains.

I've used my free will and decided I like my religion despite its discrepancies. You've used yours to decide you can't deal with it anymore.

Anonymous said...

I don't disagree with it. I am just able to go one step further to understand that those particular scriptures were a reflection of times. You chose to ignore my pointing out that there were many women in the early Xtian leadership. Maybe you'd like to ignore the fact that when Jesus ascended and sent his Spirit to his apostles, he sent Him to man and woman alike, giving both sons and daughters the gift of prophecy among other gifts.

The NT, unlike the OT, is not a collection of "follow or die" rules, laws and instructions. The death and resurrection of Christ we believe in has done away with all of that.
Most of the NT were LETTERS written to the early followers of Christ, providing them with a structure and a foundation for which they could free up their lives to worship Christ. Why is it so absurd to you that a letter would reflect the cultural era it was written in and the mentality of the people it was addressed to?

And best believe, the best of Xtians know firsthand that God definitely does not exist to say stuff that is pleasing to our ears. Na you first come know that one?

Controversy said...

Hmm i must say I agree with your response @ If a bunch of men can sit around and decide which books should be in the various bible versions and which shouldn't. Then, I can damn well decide which parts of the bible are literal or not, and therefore make sense to me
I honestly believe that that is the right approach, even though it is a hypocritical approach but it is the right approach nevertheless.

@ Anonymous.
I know of the great women in the bible, but they all had men who were above them didn't theey? Oh so now most of the collection of books in the NT where letters, so they should therefore carry no weight? Ok o lets close up shop, and go to our tents. Them being letters, in no way diminishes their impart/impact. Honestly I would prefer u go EDJ's route and clearly point out that u do not believe in that passage of the bible and u will clearly not Obey it. Let us know it up front, don't come up with an excuse to make yourself feel better. I mean it's not as if u follow all the laws of the bible to the full, disobeyin one more isn't going to hurt so rest assured anonymous

Controversy said...

@ Anonymous.
No be me first come know that one o, but then again why u tryin 2 make excuses for it.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of disproving theories: every human operates from a set of faith-assumptions.

Even those who say they don't believe in God are making faith-assumptions that God does not exist. Even the most stringent atheist comes to the table with a set of in-born assumptions about what is right and what is wrong (as shown by the owner of this blog).

So please riddle me this: what makes your set of faith-assumptions the right one? How exactly can you prove to us that your faith-assumptions are the right ones and everyone else has got it wrong? The truth is simple: you can't. Nobody can. The onus isn't on anybody to prove their faith-assumptions because my friend, nobody's faith-assumptions (Xtian, Muslim, atheist, agnostic) can be proved beyond reasonable doubt, period. That's why it's called FAITH.

Sacred said...

Oh sometimes I wonder if you are really smart or just stupid.
Sorry controversy, while you really are basking in your own vanity of finding truth, you are blinded but what I am tempted to call bitterness.
I am going to quote something I said earlier...
"Religious texts are written, interpreted and practiced by humans. There is definitely divine inspiration. However, these texts are not and will never be a perfect reflection of God's nature. Words are by nature imperfect translations of who God is/ or an affirmation of his existence."

and as many have pointed the Bible keeping in mind the TIMES, and the cultural context.
You are a rebel, and I respect that, but don't go throwing out everything the world has been, just because you want to be the next socrates of Plato

Anonymous said...

Ugh, seriously? Where did I say that most of the NT being letters reduces its significance? You accuse us of picking and choosing and yet I have noticed you like to pick and choose bits and pieces of the counter-arguments people proffer. Trying to do this with you is like pouring water in the basket of your brain.

Controversy said...

@ Anonymous.
U are making serious assumptions.
Never in my posts have I ever said that my "faith assumption" is the right one, never have I advocated it to be the right one. As i've told ppl, I would never die for my beliefs, because I might be wrong. I believe in Truth though, and any belief that cannot withstand scrutiny can not be the truth. Simple and short my friend. Simple and Short.

Controversy said...

Oh wow personal attacks. Why am I not surprised? Sacred and anonymous. Both of you cannot come up with anything to counter the argument, is the next step now to resort to "personal attacks". Please bring it on, I won't stoop to insults. Lets argue based on the topic, osoro let my brain be like basket, or let me bitter/stupid. Argue with the topic o.
Lol @ Words are by nature imperfect translations of who God is/ or an affirmation of his existence

Oh really? So why then do we use words to describe our God? That statement right there is lacking seriously.
Btw, as for cultural context, again I do not disagree with both of you. I simply ask that you tell me the criteria for judging which passages should be put down in the "cultural context" and which should be taken to heart? Because one might say that both of u simply disagree with the passage because both of you are female, or because the passage simply does not sound pleasing to your ears. Where is the CRITERIA for judging which passages are from God and which are from the disciples? This goes back to my main point, some of u have said that the disciples went off on tangents sometimes, who is to say that every writer in the bible did not go off on a tangent? Where again is the CRITERIA?

Anonymous said...

Don't be foolish. Even the men you seem to be trying (not succeeding) to emulate will be the first ones to tell you that truth is relative. If truth therefore is relative, what is the one objective test you would use to scrutinize everyone's different truths? And what is the criteria for deciding which truth passes the test and which doesn't? Keep in mind that that criteria itself is already grounded in subjective in-born assumptions of what truth is and is not

Controversy said...

Again u make assumptions.
Which men do u know that I am tryin to emulate? What is up with these assumptions? I don't even have any heroes, so what men could i possibly want to emulate?
The criteria am talkin about refers to the bible, stop takin it out to mean something else. U know very well what I mean. Honestly, it's ok if u don't have an answer for this, but i feel like ur one of those ppl who like to have answers, even if the answer is not based on truth (I just made an assumption about u, this assumption might be right or it might be false) Again, that is why it's called an assumption

Anonymous said...

@ Anonymous: who are you?

You need to show yourself.
Finally! s'one to pocket this controversy boy/man.

As anonymous said, these were letters sent to guide and encourage the early xtians. They are not God's law , so are not binding on xtians.

What we know as xtians is believe in JC , worship him in spirit nd in truth...........wait for heaven?

My anology is, if the yoruba pastor nd the igbo one preach about respect, it will come out very differently because of their cultures' varying attitude to it.

To my mind that explains paul's teachings, he was living in ancient times where women were honestly second class citizens.

TBH, this is one of my dilemma's as a xtian but i won't then decide to leave my faith cos of it

Like anonymous said, you being a deist is a result of faith bcos nothing proves ders no God nd the bible is not his book

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible..."-Stuart Chase

Let it rest controversy!!!!!

Anonymous said...

If you're reading the Bible, or even anything else for that matter, you always read it grounded in its context, period.

There are parts of the Bible that are obviously metaphorical, and other parts that aren't. There's no fast and loose rule for what should be read as literal and what shouldn't -it's all up to the individual. Nobody is dropping down into a pit of sulphur for getting it wrong.

The only thing that isn't left up to Xtians as believers is the belief that Jesus redeemed us by dying for our sins. That's the one part of the Bible that cannot be compromised. The people living by the Bible aren't asking for a criteria to determine what should be read as literal and what shouldn't. Why are you, an outsider, trying to force a criteria on their belief system?

So again I ask you. You boldly stated that the one thing you believe in is truth.

Therefore, please riddle me this: If truth is relative, what is the one objective test you would use to scrutinize everyone's different truths? And what is the criteria for deciding which truth passes the test and which doesn't? Keep in mind that that criteria itself is already grounded in subjective in-born assumptions of what truth is and is not.

Controversy said...

@ ttolla.
Umm having a hard time understanding your comment. The truth will reveal itself in every culture. The truth should not become distorted from culture to culture.
Lmao so the letters are not binding on christians? Wow haha yet ur pastors/preachers use these letters to convert people everyday. I am glad, that ttolla a woman such as urself has such authority to declare which books of the bible are bindin and which are not. Please, did God give u the permission/authority? Cus me no understand how someone God did not give authority can decide which books of the bible are bindin and which are not.

Controversy said...

@ Anonymous.
So umm it is left up to the individual? Ok lets say I agree with u. why is it that when an individual says something accordin to how he/she has understood the bible, u see other christians claimin that that individual does not understand the bible.
You believe that christ died for your sins, based on what proof? U read it in a book written by disciples? The same disciples that have been shown to go off on a tangent/lie. What is to stop those very same liars/disciples from lying/embellising the story of Jesus? Jews claimed he did not resurrect, romans claim he did not resurrect, only the disciples/followers of Christ claim he resurrected. So I disagree with you, that part of the bible can indeed be compromised. Please refer to my friend's blasphemy's post about the conception of Jesus. (

As for the one objective test, this is very simple. Every belief should be able to answer "questions" that are posed. U ask christians questions, or ask bible questions and ppl tell u to wait till u get to heaven then God will answer your questions. What if man pikin doesn't make it to heaven? Who will answer his questions?

Anonymous said...

Sweetie, I don't need proof. That's why it's called my FAITH. I heard the story of this salvation that was made possible by someone who loved me so much that he took my place and it resonated within me. Believing it didn't add any constraints to my life, it enhanced it. It freed me up from worrying about how I couldn't do anything right. What could possibly be my beef against that?

I can't reduce such a spiritual feeling to so-called facts and logic. It's like asking me to scientifically explain why I feel so moved when I admire beautiful flowers or I hear a wondrous piece of music.

And while you ask away for proof, please prove the objectivity of the test you just proffered to me beyond all reasonable doubt. Please prove to me that this test is the ultimate right test for judging what truth is. What is the reasoning behind this assertion?

Every belief should be able to answer any questions it's asked, you say. How laughable is this? Can your own belief answer any and every question that I ask of it? Do you really believe that any one belief has answers for EVERY question that is posed to it? Really, what are you saying?

Anonymous said...

Oh and by the way, when I said that the basic tenet could not be compromised, I meant that was the one thing all Xtians are asked to believe in wholeheartedly without reservations. We are expected to accept completely that Jesus died for our sins. And if you can't do it, bye bye. Every religion, indeed, every community in this world, has its standards for inclusion and exclusion. If you want to be included, join the crowd. If it's too much to ask, keep it moving and find somewhere that works for you. No need to knock Xtians for having a criteria for inclusion. Every community or religion does.

Controversy said...

Oh because it is a basic tenet, it should not be questioned again? it cannot be doubted? It should not come under scrutiny?
Why won't believing that somebody imaginary free u from constraints? Ehn? It frees u from usin that intelligence God gave u to think for yourself, indeed a book written by men and voted by men is what frees u from the constraints of thinking abi? More grease to your elbow.
NOBODY is askin u to reduce anything to facts and logic. If i came to u tomorrow and told u God told me to tell u to give me 500 dollars, would ur faith pass the test? Wouldn't u seek to know further? How God told me? U would want to apply reason/logic so please stop lying to yourself about ur socalled "Faith" givin u the excuse not to think for yourself.
Loool yes if it is a belief based on truth, it should indeed be able to answer EVERY QUESTION. EVERY SINGLE QUESTION, now if ur belief is not based on truth, that is when u see people like urself resortin to personal attacks and consulting "cultural context" to help u explain a law that is in ur own bible. Wat a shame really.
Lol @ no need to knock on christians for havin a criteria for inclusion. Yeah ur right, seeing as that criteria is that everyone leave their brain @ the door, remove their intelligence/reasoning faculty in front of the door, before we enter ur church to get brainwashed.
Please anonymous, why are u getting so defensive? U are now talkin about exclusion and inclusion? Lmao ok o. Oya keep on excluding.

Anonymous said...

Well, I suppose whatever your belief is, it answers every question about life. You should share your success with the rest of the world instead of bashing us deluded ones who apparently checked logic out at the front door.

You sef dey take Phensic for Xtians' headache. Dem talk say their criteria for inclusion is to believe in the death and resurrection of Jesus, you waan come vex even though your own belief (based on "truth" - the heck, you didn't even address the relativity of truth, btw) supposedly has all the answers. Why you still dey vex naa? And you're attacking me of being defensive because me too, I get story like you? Your jokes no get part II.

Controversy said...

Lol me dey vex? hahahahaha dat one na serious Stori.
Please I was a christian before, so I did not just wake up one day and start criticizin christianity. I ask questions, i criticize. If u were expectin us to serve tea and eat biscuit in this blog then u obviously did not get the memo of this blog lol.
My point is this hun, i do not care to be excluded/included in your blog.
If u sincerely believe that ur "belief system is rooted in truth" u should honestly welcome questions about it. Afterall, if those questions are shut down, that should serve to strenthen your faith. But if everytime, somebody asks a question about ur faith, u catch hypertension. I will dare to say that ur faith in your belief system is not so strong.

Anonymous said... annonymous is so smartttttt!!!tell him..whoever you are.
this is my first time here and the last...a friend of mine told me that whenever she wants to convince herself that she is smart..she comes here cos the writer of this blog is sooo stupid.i seriously thought she was kidding.i laughed my ass off.
why dont you try to convince us of your faith...why dont you tell us why you believe in the things you believe in?why are you knocking what others believe in when you cant convince us that you are happy in your ignorance...cough..sorry knowledge?
laugh wan kill me die.
he he he he.
this blog sucks men..nowonder only a few people comment while only annon keeps commenting over and over again.people have obviously given up on your stupidity.he he he.
continue the good work keeps me entertained and laughing.lmao.this is so funny.lmao.
love the blog mehn,love the blog.
sorry,just cant stop laughing.

Sacred said...

have you ever wondered about your own personal attacks controversy?

You are not just attacking "God" you are attacking people. YOu are throwing their beliefs in their faces and calling them stupid, ignorant and whatever other names you come up with for the "Christians".
You are right, you are a hypocrite because you do not realize your own form of argument when it thrown back at you.

Controversy said...

Somebody please hold me, I think I might faint. The babe dat writes the confessions of a confused teenager just vowed that this would be the last time she would come to my blog. I think I am about to die, a whole leggy will not read my blog again? Please somebody, prepare my coffin, this revelation must be the death of moi. I did not know that miss leggy was such an important personality... That her boycotting my blog would be cause for concern. *bites fingernails furiously".
Loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooool my friend Chari told me that ppl on blogsville could be vicious with their attacks. I thought he was kidding, umm I could choose to insult u or I could choose to laugh.
I will laugh, because you just committed what is known in philosophy as a fallacy of irrelevance. Instead of responding to the blogpost, u resort to attacking the person. Like that in anyway, diminishes the impact of the argument. Ad Hominem Fallacy babe, ad hominem fallacy.
Lol @ u thinkin that i am worried about how many comments I get, honestly if thats what you've come here to talk about. More grease to your elbow. (Checks to make sure he did not in anyway insult her, before he posts a reply to her comment)

Controversy said...

Lol again sacred as I have told u, u can attack me infact abuse me tire lol. No be today, the thing start. I have no problem with u abusing me, I can always cry later lmao. Now, there is a thin line between disrespectin somebody's belief and criticizin it. I maintain the firm belief that I CRITICIZE/QUESTION. Now forgive me if I do not expect a biased person like urself to see my questions as being as form of disrespect. Again as I've told u, when something does not sound good to people's ears they tend to view as a form of disrespect. Sacred, I've never read a comment/post of urs in which u've not launched into attacks on your opponent. Please u of all people should not be advicin me on Argumentative etiquette.
I might indeed cross the line a few times and disrespect the religion as I did in my last blog post, but then again i am human, a hypocrite, a liar. I disclosed all this flaws about my person in my about me, so nobody should act surprised.

Enoch said...

Things are heating up at my end. Can't keep up with the realtime commenting. But you seem to be doing just fine. Like I said before. You are a Jedi.

"I think I am about to die, a whole leggy will not read my blog again? Please somebody, prepare my coffin, this revelation must be the death of moi. I did not know that miss leggy was such an important personality... That her boycotting my blog would be cause for concern. *bites fingernails furiously".


Enoch said...

On second thought. It seems like the action here is too much to ignore.

Please can you help me understand what you are talking about?

"Sweetie, I don't need proof. That's why it's called my FAITH. I heard the story of this salvation that was made possible by someone who loved me so much that he took my place and it resonated within me. Believing it didn't add any constraints to my life, it enhanced it. It freed me up from worrying about how I couldn't do anything right. What could possibly be my beef against that?"

If I get you right, you heard a story. You believed it. It happens to make you feel better. And while you admit there's no proof confirming the story, you have no beef because it frees you from worry?

Am I missing something?

If I'm not then what the hell are you arguing about? Nobody has the right to tell you what to believe and what not to. If you believe cocaine is a vitamin, its your prerogative. If you believe Obasanjo lives in your briefs, no one is stopping you. Especially if you admit that you don't know for sure but it makes you feel better and that's all that matters.

However, every soul reserves the right to point out that Obasanjo can't fit in your briefs.

Enoch said...

"Even the men .... will be the first ones to tell you that truth is relative"


Four words. Hogwash and red herring.

Controversy said...

@ Enoch
Hahahahah @ every soul reserves the right to point out that obasanjo lives in your briefs.. Hella almost choked laffin @ that one.
If I get you right, you heard a story. You believed it. It happens to make you feel better. And while you admit there's no proof confirming the story, you have no beef because it frees you from worry?

Yep the above post pretty much sums up her whole claim. As long as she has faith, she doesn't have to worry whether what she has faith in, is true or not.

Myne Whitman said...

Congrats on another on point post. Have you heard of bible commentaries before? I see that most of your questions can be answered by one of those. Good luck.

Controversy said...

@ Myne.
Again i am havin a hard time deciphering whether you are being sarcastic or honest lol.
Umm @ bible commentaries, what is the point of listenin to those? I already listen to pastors anyway.

nonny said...

Sigh... i am glad this post has made everyone realize that the bible was written by men and might have been doctored along the way.

Christianity is a belief. It is based on trust and faith. I do not think it is possible to defend what is in the bible. It is difficult to differentiate between what man saw and just added.

So, controversy, our beliefs are based on faith and i think you can ask all the questions you want but we do not have the answers. Yes, we follow these beliefs blindly. But don't forget science doesn't have an answer for everything.

Controversy said...

@ nonny.
I have no faith in science as well, i certainly do not believe that is has all the answers.
It does come in handy from time to time though

Trybes said...

wow..what a long read through your posts and the lengthy

Keep it comin you,im learnin so much from your discourse and that of other commenters..

Lady X said...

Hee Hee Controversy you're just evil lmao!

juiceegal said...

LMAO at ''a whole leggy would not comment on my post again''...gosh that comment had me cracking up seriously, i can't stop laughin at that.
I'm muslim so i don't really understand the whole new testamment versus old testament thing...I read the bible and from what i know the bible was not written by God so that bit about paul saying what he said in my opinion is paul's opinion and not what God intended it to be.

Enoch said...

"But don't forget science doesn't have an answer for everything"
"I have no faith in science as well,"

Science does not claim to know all the answers. But it does pursue them endlessly. And if its track record is anything to go by, there is ample reason to have faith in it. Not that I'm advocating faith, I'm just saying science has infinitely more reason to deserve faith than religious beliefs.

It was religious belief that brought us "the earth is the center of the universe" crap and it was science that washed that away with the truth.

It was religious belief that brought us "the world is abut 6000 years old" crap and science decimated that with the truth.

Science doesn't ask for blind faith, rather it rejects it and begs only for minimum curiosity and offers truth in return. Regardless of its label, the pursuit of truth should be the most celebrated endeavor.

Controversy said...

@ Trybes.
Thank you my broda.

@ Lady X
Na condition make man pikin evil o.

@ @ Juicegaal.
U are right hun, but I intend to show this ppl over and over again that God had no part in writing the bible.

@ Enoch
True that, Science indeed does do all those things, I do not disagree with that. But science has been unable to tell us where we came from? How the first cell came about. But between religions and science, I would rather place my faith in science

nonny said...

@ Enoch
Yes, science does explain using facts. But do not forget these facts are also stated by men. The same dudes who wrote the bible.

@ controversy
you rather science? sigh
i don't judge

Tigeress said...

:):):) Great topic!!! But don't have anything to say. When judgment day comes- we shall all see- nah? Btw- whose words were these? Jesus's or Timothy's?

Enoch said...

Brilliantly put. And that's why I ignore the messenger, be it Einstein or Jesus. Rather I focus on the message and distill it for truth.

Having said that, you have to hold disciples of truth (scientists) in higher esteem than followers of religion/faith because unlike the latter scientists don't only expect but demand their work be peer reviewed and are even happy if it is proven false because truth is the only thing that matters.

Controversy said...

The facts in the bible nonny do not hold up to scrutiny.
As Enoch said, ignore the messenger, focus on the message and distill the truth.

@ Tigeress
Thank u, no these were the words of Paul not Timothy/Jesus. But Paul.

HYAW said...

No judging, Mr controversially blasphemous. so that you wold not be judged. it is only God who would say those going to hell

Controversy said...

U seem like a reasonable person, I am not judging anybody. I might ccriticize/question your religion but to go as far as to judge u for havin/believin dat religion. I don't believe in that.

Enoch said...


This issue of judging is something a lot of people are irrationally sensitive about.

What is the difference between judging and criticizing constructively?

What is wrong with judging that a lizard is indeed a lizard? In other words if I can judge something accurately why should I not?

"Don't judge" is a phrase folks often hide behind to justify irrational thought and behavior.

If your friend gets in a car without brakes do you ignore pointing this out lest he feels you are judging him as stupid?

The judging is not what one needs to be concerned about rather it is the accuracy of the judgment.

I say "Judge me always"

RocNaija said...

Nothing riles people more than discussing religion and politics..

Was true when the bible was written..
Is true today..
And will be true long after we're gone..

Controversy said...

Ok Enoch lol.
U are actually right, lmao dude u will not kill me with ur reasoning.
So true @ "Don't Judge" is what ppl use to excuse irrational behavior.

@ Rocnaija
Lol i don't know about the bible being the same forever. I don't know which one u've been reading.

Myne Whitman said...

@Controversy, I encourage you to buy a good bible that has an inbuilt commentary. By the way all Christians are human and fallible and the only way to get the inspired essence of the bible is to take it as a whole. This is why a concordance will also help.

I agree the bible comprises books that have been tampered with, compiled by old men with questionable motives but you have to know it is only meant as I guide. If you want a study bible by a seasoned teacher, I will recommend KJV edited by C.I. Scofield. You may also look for his book, "Rightly dividing the word of truth." You want the truth abi?

Controversy said...

Lol myne I will take ur advice and try to find that book.
But myne i have a question though, this Scofield guy does he address the motives he might have for writing the book? Is his book also God inspired? How can he rightly divide the Word of Truth? How is he going to accomplish that? With who's help? God or Holy Spirit? I will look into the book o my sister.

Fabulo-la said...

*shakes head*

Controversy said...

@ Fabuo la


The Girl with the Red Hair said...

That friend of yours should be transported back to Paul's era.

That kind of person would refuse to send his female children to school.

Controversy said...

Hahaha lol maybe he would.
Idk i mean if he follows the bible strictly then that is what he would be.

Keesha said...

Should Women be Pastors?

Part 1

There is perhaps no more hotly debated issue in the church today than the issue of women serving as pastors/preachers. As a result, it is very important to not see this issue as men versus women. There are women who believe women should not serve as pastors and that the Bible places restrictions on the ministry of women, and there are men who believe women can serve as preachers and that there are no restrictions on women in ministry. This is not an issue of chauvinism or discrimination. It is an issue of biblical interpretation.

The Word of God proclaims, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). In the church, God assigns different roles to men and women. This is a result of the way mankind was created and the way in which sin entered the world (2 Timothy 2:13-14). God, through the apostle Paul, restricts women from serving in roles of teaching and/or having spiritual authority over men. This precludes women from serving as pastors, which definitely includes preaching to, teaching, and having spiritual authority over men.

There are many “objections” to this view of women in ministry. A common one is that Paul restricts women from teaching because in the first century, women were typically uneducated. However, 1 Timothy 2:11-14 nowhere mentions educational status. If education were a qualification for ministry, the majority of Jesus' disciples would not have been qualified. A second common objection is that Paul only restricted the women of Ephesus from teaching (1 Timothy was written to Timothy, who was the pastor of the church in Ephesus). The city of Ephesus was known for its temple to Artemis, a false Greek/Roman goddess. Women were the authority in the worship of Artemis. However, the book of 1 Timothy nowhere mentions Artemis, nor does Paul mention Artemis worship as a reason for the restrictions in 1 Timothy 2:11-12.

A third common objection is that Paul is only referring to husbands and wives, not men and women in general. The Greek words in the passage could refer to husbands and wives; however, the basic meaning of the words refers to men and women. Further, the same Greek words are used in verses 8-10. Are only husbands to lift up holy hands in prayer without anger and disputing (verse 8)? Are only wives to dress modestly, have good deeds, and worship God (verses 9-10)? Of course not. Verses 8-10 clearly refer to all men and women, not only husbands and wives. There is nothing in the context that would indicate a switch to husbands and wives in verses 11-14.

Yet another frequent objection to this interpretation of women in ministry is in relation to women who held positions of leadership in the Bible, specifically Miriam, Deborah, and Huldah in the Old Testament. This objection fails to note some significant factors. First, Deborah was the only female judge among 13 male judges. Huldah was the only female prophet among dozens of male prophets mentioned in the Bible. Miriam's only connection to leadership was being the sister of Moses and Aaron. The two most prominent women in the times of the Kings were Athaliah and Jezebel—hardly examples of godly female leadership. Most significantly, though, the authority of women in the Old Testament is not relevant to the issue. The book of 1 Timothy and the other Pastoral Epistles present a new paradigm for the church—the body of Christ—and that paradigm involves the authority structure for the church, not for the nation of Israel or any other Old Testament entity.

Keesha said...

Should Women be Pastors?

Part 2

Similar arguments are made using Priscilla and Phoebe in the New Testament. In Acts 18, Priscilla and Aquila are presented as faithful ministers for Christ. Priscilla's name is mentioned first, perhaps indicating that she was more “prominent” in ministry than her husband. However, Priscilla is nowhere described as participating in a ministry activity that is in contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:11-14. Priscilla and Aquila brought Apollos into their home and they both discipled him, explaining the Word of God to him more accurately (Acts 18:26).

In Romans 16:1, even if Phoebe is considered a “deaconess” instead of a “servant,” that does not indicate that Phoebe was a teacher in the church. “Able to teach” is given as a qualification for elders, but not deacons (1 Timothy 3:1-13; Titus 1:6-9). Elders/bishops/deacons are described as the “husband of one wife,” “a man whose children believe,” and “men worthy of respect.” Clearly the indication is that these qualifications refer to men. In addition, in 1 Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:6-9, masculine pronouns are used exclusively to refer to elders/bishops/deacons.

The structure of 1 Timothy 2:11-14 makes the “reason” perfectly clear. Verse 13 begins with “for” and gives the “cause” of Paul’s statement in verses 11-12. Why should women not teach or have authority over men? Because “Adam was created first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived.” God created Adam first and then created Eve to be a “helper” for Adam. This order of creation has universal application in the family (Ephesians 5:22-33) and the church. The fact that Eve was deceived is also given as a reason for women not serving as pastors or having spiritual authority over men. This leads some to believe that women should not teach because they are more easily deceived. That concept is debatable, but if women are more easily deceived, why should they be allowed to teach children (who are easily deceived) and other women (who are supposedly more easily deceived)? That is not what the text says. Women are not to teach men or have spiritual authority over men because Eve was deceived. As a result, God has given men the primary teaching authority in the church.

Many women excel in gifts of hospitality, mercy, teaching, and helps. Much of the ministry of the local church depends on women. Women in the church are not restricted from public praying or prophesying (1 Corinthians 11:5), only from having spiritual teaching authority over men. The Bible nowhere restricts women from exercising the gifts of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12). Women, just as much as men, are called to minister to others, to demonstrate the fruit of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), and to proclaim the gospel to the lost (Matthew 28:18-20; Acts 1:8; 1 Peter 3:15).

God has ordained that only men are to serve in positions of spiritual teaching authority in the church. This is not because men are necessarily better teachers, or because women are inferior or less intelligent (which is not the case). It is simply the way God designed the church to function. Men are to set the example in spiritual leadership—in their lives and through their words. Women are to take a less authoritative role. Women are encouraged to teach other women (Titus 2:3-5). The Bible also does not restrict women from teaching children. The only activity women are restricted from is teaching men or having spiritual authority over them. This logically would preclude women from serving as pastors/preachers. This does not make women less important, by any means, but rather gives them a ministry focus more in agreement with God’s plan and His gifting of them.

Recommended Resource: Women and Men In Ministry: A Complementary Perspective by Robert Saucy & Judy TenElshof.