I edited that out while you responded. See edit notice.
I appreciate this initial response from you, conceding that Junias is indeed masculine and that Origen nowhere describes Junia as a male. As Belleville lays out, all of Origen’s manuscripts and quotations of Origen prior to the 12th century use the feminine Junia. Making these mistakes is completely fair, because it’s not like everyone has direct and easy access to the scholarly literature (let alone have the time to read it) where this is all laid out plain.
As for the meaning of ‘apostle’ in the letters of Paul, the book I’ve been quoting by Epp has a nice explanation of the term on pp. 69-70 that I think we can all benefit from.
I look forwards to a more fruitful discussion as we go on.
Nice try. Only Grudem and and his goofy biblical manhood and womanhood friends continue to demote Junia to “not a real apostle” in light of all the recent scholarship on the issue. I’m not going to argue the point here, but every single person I know who has honestly looked into this issue recognizes the overwhelming strength of the “Junia was an apostle” position.
Deborah was a judge. Miriam was a worship leader. Huldah was a sought out prophet. Joanna, Susannah, and “the women” traveled with Jesus as he did “gospel” work, presumably helping out like the other disciples. Mary was commended for sitting at the feet of the Rabbi as a disciple (disciples carried on the work of the master, which in Jesus case would have been preaching the kingdom) and there is far more written about her in the Gospels than Thaddeus. Priscilla is always mentioned before Aquila in the context of teaching and gospel work and disciples Apollos, one of the major evangelists of the day. Junia was an apostle. Phoebe was a deacon and the first exegete of the book of Romans. Multiple women are listed as Paul’s “co-laborers” and were involved in “gospel work.”
All of the woman-limiting prooftexts have cultural contexts that make them understandable.
The offices we have today of “ordained pastor,” which entail job positions with salaries and benefits and pensions, weren’t a thing in the early church. Many denominations that won’t ordain women to compete with men for pastor jobs in developed countries are fine sending women off to the mission field to preach and disciple men and basically do “pastoral” things. But these are places where the men they “have authority over” aren’t white and white guys don’t care to go because you don’t get paid and you get malaria and don’t have air conditioning or football. Which makes me wonder what kind of sexism, racism, and materialism is behind that hypocrisy.
6 Likes
Good summary. My conversation with Skovand basically forced me to reading all the scholarship on the topic, and read I did. The main discussions on Junia’s apostolic status are in a subsection of Bauckham’s book Gospel Women, a 2005 paper by Belleville in the NTS journal, and a full (but short) book by Eldon Epp. I basically read all three in the last 24 hours and it’s safe to say that the scholarly literature is absolutely unambiguous in terms of its findings, as I laid out at length in a prior response to Skovand. Furthermore, I basically rewrote the whole Wikipedia page on Junia in the last day. It wasn’t far off the mark - it got the basics dead on, but it was confusing, badly cited, and so forth. Right now, I’ve turned it into a scholarly and concise resource to quickly dispel any individual trying to subvert Junia’s apostolic status. I found that the page receives roughly 4,000 visits a month, and that is a solid body of people to properly educate on the topic.
In my opinion, the Deborah thing is one of the most impressive in the Bible. Here’s a women who ruled over all of Israel. If God can let women lead His whole chosen people, it’s hard to see why they can’t be an apostle.
2 Likes
Here is part of the issue of Junia being an aspostle selected by Christ himself who had witnessed the baptism of John and ect… the qualifications lined out. We see two groups being referred to as apostles, which simply means sent out. We see those sent by Jesus himself, and we see those sent by the church or apostles. Typically, those sent by the church or apostles are simply called messengers, which is the same word as apostles. It’s often translated differently for the reasons I’m about to lay out. It’s not a single verse issue though. It requires not verbal gymnastics and make belief dot connecting, but showing the development of the subject.
I understand it’s a bit long. I want to do it as it’s own thread. But this is just a snippet of the subject. Normally it’s a study broken up into 2 studies that is about study number 4 out of many that i go over when carrying out the great commission.
- Jesus tells the apostles to remain in the city (Jerusalem) until they are clothed with power from on high.
- Gathering them, together he told them don’t leave Jerusalem but wait for the promise of being baptized with the Holy Spirit.
*Jesus told them, the 11, that they would receive the power when they received the spirit ( indwelling of the Holy Spirit verses the power of the Holy Spirit) and they would be his witnesses that he personally sent out to Jerusalem, Samaria, and to the ends of the world.
- Peter stands, specifically before the brothers and sister ( women are standing there listening) and he says that Judas needs to be replaced by one of the men ( he specifics a brother ) who has met a few other qualifications. Then two men are chosen by Lots ( something connected to Christ making the choice , it’s a supernatural event that’s also mentioned throughout the Old Testament) and one of the men is chosen and it’s Matthias.
- They ( the now 12 apostles just mentioned in the previous chapter ) were in Jerusalem on Pentecost and tongues of fire landed on the and they begin to speak in tongues.
- Peter preaches the gospel to the Jews standing there at Pentecost.
- Many standing there believe it and are cut to the heart. They ask the apostles ( brothers indicating again it’s the 12) what shall we do and Peter tells them to repent and be baptized to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, forgiveness of sins and be added to the body. Peter then says that this is a promise to all of them, their kids, and everyone far off.
- Jump ahead six chapters and we see that Saul is persecuting Christians and having them killed. All the Christians there flee Jerusalem except for the 12 apostles. Those men remain behind while the rest run away.
*One of the deacons previously chosen ( acts 6:1-6) named Philip runs away to Samaria. While there he begins to preform great miracles. ( because again in those other verses it says the apostles laid hands on him ) . He even amazes a local “witch” who believed the gospel and repented. He , along with many others did that and got baptized into Christ. Thus fulfilling the promise Peter made back in acts 2 believing, repentance, and baptism.
- When the apostles heard what was happening in Samaria ( the second place out of the three mentioned earlier ) they sent Peter and John there. The two apostles prayed that the Samaritans would receive the Holy Spirit. Those who heard, believed , and was baptized. They received the indwelling but apparently did not receive any spiritual powers. Though Philip was able to perform miracles, he could not preform laying on of hands. That’s why the two apostles came there. Simon the witch even say that the power was given through the laying on of the apostles hands and wanted to purchase it but was rebuked. Simon wanted the power to be able to lay hands on someone so that they could receive spiritual powers.
*In acts 9 and 22 we read of Paul’s conversion story where he was selected by Jesus to be an apostle to the gentiles. He was sent out by Christ himself.
- Saul/Paul meets some disciples of John and he teaches them the gospel and tells the about the baptism of spirit. He then lays hands on them, and they receive the Holy Spirit and begin demonstrating powers of the Holy Spirit by speaking in tongues.
- Paul tells Timothy to rekindle the gift placed in him by the laying on of hands. By the hands of Paul, an apostle sent out personally by Jesus.
- Though often overlooked, the laying on of hands and washings ( baptisms) are crucial to really understanding theology and especially apostleship. Not merely one sent by the church or apostles, but as one specifically chosen and sent out by Christ himself. The laying on of hands is a elementary teaching.
—————————————————————
So a few questions for.
- Why did Jesus choose 14 men total? The original 12, then Matthias through lots and finally Paul in a vision to be the Apostles sent out by him? Why did he not pick a woman?
2.Why did Peter ask for only men despite directly talking to men and women.
-
What is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and how do you get it? What is the powers of the Holy Spirit and how do you get it? If you don’t think there is a difference then why did Peter say it was promise in acts 2 and then it did not happen in acts 8.
-
What is the special power that apostles had? What was laying on of hands? Not merely like what the eldership does anointing someone but the laying on of hands that resulted in a person receiving the Holy Spirit.
-
What’s the scriptural evidence that Junia was handpicked by Jesus Christ himself and sent out to be one of his chosen apostles with the ability to lay on hands?
Also to be clear because I felt like it’s been misrepresented a few times against me.
Just because I believe that no woman was an apostle, or that any woman can be a elder does not mean I believe woman are second class citizens. I don’t believe Jesus or Paul’s teachings about things like husband and wife and whose is the head of a household is evil or there stipulations on eldership.
Women played many very important roles in building up the body of Christ. I’ve stated that scripturally women were prophets, can most likely be deacons, that they can be preachers and study the Bible out with men. They can definitely speak in church and can be just as righteous and educated as the best men out there.
It’s not tradition that drives my opinion. Nothing in my tradition believes that genesis 1-11 is mythological, or that evolution is real, and most of them don’t even believe that woman can be teachers. I differ tremendously from my congregation in many ways and from the way the gospels and doctrine was initially taught to me. My opinion is based off of what I see in scripture. Even if it makes no sense to why it is the way it is, as a Christian I have to go where I see the Bible leading. I would be perfectly fine if Jesus picked a few woman as apostles and that there was women directly linked to apostleship without a doubt. I’m not worried about it. I have no reason to be. Jesus could have been the daughter of God and i would have been just as happy. Paul could have been Paulina and it would not be detrimental to me whatsoever.
I don’t want to be a pastor. I have zero to gain from drawing this conclusion from the Bible. Even if I wanted to be a pastor, I could not because I don’t meet the requirements of eldership either. I think there are a lot of women who are better biblical teachers than any man I know.
But my doctrine and theology is partly based on scripture and at the very least can’t undermine it .
So to say anyone who has seriously looked into this draws the conclusion that Junia was an apostle like Paul, Peter and so on is not true. For a fact, I bet that those who do don’t even know what the apostles laying of hands is. The scriptures uses both of these “sent outs” as apostle. Same as how older men and elders both use the same word and how deacons and servants both use the same word. Those Apostles chosen by Christ himself in person, by lots, or in vision could not only preform miracles, just like Philip, but they could lay their hands on someone and pass onto them a power. Only the apostles could do this.
So with this entire issue being completely left out of Junia’s life it’s definitely safe, and scholarly, to see that she was well known as an outstanding disciple among the apostles and she did many great things but she was not one handpicked by Jesus with that authority attached to her.
As I have mentioned several times though, even if she was that does not mean she’s an elder. They did have the office of eldership in the first century and we see it clearly again and again throughout scripture. The elders were not apostles just like the deacons were not apostles. As seen with Philip a deacon who was able to preach the gospels and baptize the lost into Christ and able to preform miracles, but he himself could not give that power that the apostles had as Simon coveted.
1 Like
Good for you. Thanks for your contribution to making the world more informed.
He chose twelve men. The Twelve filled a symbolic role to the Jews as a recapitulation of the heads of the twelve tribes of Israel. Paul wasn’t one of them. Neither were the others sent out as apostles, some of whom were probably women. The reason the Twelve were all men had to do with their symbolic role to Jews. The heads of the tribes of Israel were all men.
The symbolic role required a man in the Jewish cultural context.
Why are you assuming only apostles laid hands on people. And clearly this isn’t the only way people received the Holy Spirit, since in Acts 10:47 Peter says the Gentile church of Cornelius received the Holy Spirit as a group in a second Pentecost-like experience. No one in the early church was “receiving special powers.” God worked signs and wonders through people for his own reasons in his own timing. The Holy Spirit is not something you harness and master to do cool stuff.
The “laying on of hands” was a symbolic Christian practice (like baptism and communion) that was associated with prayer, healing, blessing, and commissioning. It was not something limited to apostles. Timothy was given instructions about it. It’s also noted that it was the elders who laid hands on him when he received his spiritual gifting, not apostles. (1 Tim 4:14) In Acts 13, it is the prophets and teachers of the church at Antioch (Barnabas, Simeon, and Lucius are the people named) who lay hands on Paul and Barnabas and send them out on mission.
At the heart of the question of “women in ministry” is whether women are gifted by the Spirit to preach and teach and do gospel work. In the New Testament, they clearly are. (In the Old Testament, although they don’t serve as Levitical priests, they serve as prophets and judges, clear positions of divinely sanctioned authority, spiritual and civil, over both men and women.)
The questions about whether they are “allowed” to fil certain “offices” or whether or not those offices even existed as such in the earliest church are another matter and one whose answers are often tied up in traditions and histories of cultures and societies and the guidance of church leaders that were more sexist than our own. I’m pretty convinced that beyond the symbolic Twelve, making apostleship or pastor some kind of “office” in the NT is imposing our own categories on the situation. Christians with the appropriate giftings were involved in the work of spreading the gospel and edifying the church. Women were involved in church planting work, leadership, financial patronship, teaching, preaching, and prophecy. They were imprisoned and executed for their work alongside the men they served with.
Also the history of the work of women in the early centuries of the church was neglected and forgotten. In the 200s the church had lots of high-born Roman women converts with considerable education and respect. For example, Jerome referred a group of elders to Marcella to resolve a problem they were having with interpretation.
1 Like
I just laid out many verses covering the laying on of apostles hands. What happened with Cornelius does not undermine anything but fits in exactly with what Jesus said. He would send them to the Jews, then to the Samaritans, and then to the gentiles.
We see it very clearly in scripture that the apostles were the ones doing it from acts 8 and the other verses.
What happened with Cornelius was a fulfillment of the prophecies Jesus made in acts 1 after showing Peter visions repeatedly to get the body jump started.
Of course the 12 was symbolism for the 12 tribes. That still does not change anything I wrote. Jesus was not a man bound to cultural norms. He was bound to doctrine and Gods will.
If it was nothing, then what happened with acts 8?
Turning eldership and apostles into the offices they are is not imposing anything except what scripture says. You can see the patterns of eldership even under the previous covenants in the old
Testament.
There are good reasons to not see Jesus’ choice of the 12 as setting a leadership template. “Jesus answered them, ‘Did I not choose you, the twelve? Yet one of you is a devil’ ” (John 6:70). There’s no rule that men and devils are okay but not women. The Twelve are 12 Jewish men. The group represents in some sense the whole nation of Israel – with the 12 tribes from 12 sons of Jacob/Israel. Especially in Mark and Matthew, the Twelve are a foil for other followers. They are the privileged ones who fight about power and don’t understand Jesus’ message while those they look down on (Roman soldiers, women, Gentiles, the disabled) show faith and service. When the Twelve finally get it, they show the faithful remnant of Israel. If this imagery wasn’t important, the book of Acts wouldn’t begin with a complex scene to get the Twelve back to 12.
Leaving aside the symbolism of the Twelve, your question reduces to why did Jesus choose Paul, another Jewish man? After all, what better way to portray the expansion of the gospel to the Gentiles than by picking a Gentile? But given how much even Paul struggled to maintain fellowship with the church leadership in Jerusalem, imagine if he had been a Gentile woman! He at least shared their background and could claim all the same cultural privileges – even as he said they were rubbish. So, I think Jesus made a good choice. 
Because Peter understood the symbolic purpose of the Twelve, representing the 12 sons of Israel. If he didn’t, there would be no need to get the number back to 12. (And if one wants to argue that it was because Scripture demanded it rather than any desire to maintain the symbolism, simply read the passages Peter cites, Psalm 69 and 109. They do not unambiguously speak to their situation. They would only become relevant if Peter already knew what needed to be done.)
Those are tough questions and there are many different approaches. I lean towards the view that the Spirit was withheld for a time in Samaria for the benefit of the apostles from Jerusalem. This way, they saw it happen with their own eyes and couldn’t write it off. It helped to prevent an early splintering of the church. Samaria seems to be the only place where the Spirit is delayed like this. In Ephesus, it’s the full knowledge of the gospel that they lack, not merely the laying on of hands.
Back at Pentecost, the apostles played no role in the Spirit’s coming upon the early believers when “they were all together in one place.” This seems to have been ten times more than the Twelve, around 120 people, and explicitly included women according to Peter’s words about it reflecting Joel’s prophecy. Later, the Holy Spirit is also given directly without any need for the involvement of the Twelve.
I’m struggling to see how you see this power of laying on of hands moving beyond the Twelve and Paul. Since you see a distinction between apostles and overseers, why do you see this apostolic power passing on to overseers (which you argue are biblically male-only) and not on to other apostles (which are unambiguously not male-only, due to Junia)? Even if you think Junia is a “secondary” apostle, it would seem that “secondary” apostles would be required if the “primary” apostles are all dead. Unless, of course, the Holy Spirit isn’t confered by powerful people’s hands, in which case this is all prety much moot.
We know that Paul called Junia an apostle, as was recognized by all known early interpreters including those who opposed women in church leadership. We know Paul viewed an apostle as someone handpicked by Jesus. We know that Paul was aware of apostles beyond the Twelve (“he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than 500 … then to James, then to all the apostles … he appeared also to me. For I am the least of the apostles,” 1 Cor. 15:5–8).
As for the special ability to convey the Holy Spirit with their hands, I don’t believe that’s normative for any group of people. The Holy Spirit isn’t a commodity anyone can bottle and distribute. When the Spirit is connected to someone’s hands, I think it was specifically done to show people that God was breaking their barriers (to show the Samaritans were full brothers and sisters, to show Paul was a full apostle, to show Gentiles were full brothers and sisters).
1 Like
We can think what we want.
Yet I showed the verses where it was a prophecy and promise given to the apostles that when they received the Holy Spirit ( the indwelling ) they would also receive the power. Then we see those same men it was promised to demonstrate it and no one else.
We know the power is separate from another verse where Jesus brings it up.
Matthew 7:21-23
New American Standard Bible
21 “(A)Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. 22 (B)Many will say to Me on ©that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many [a]miracles?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; (D)leave Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
There will be those who had performed miracles and yet despite having the power they were not actually saved. Same threat tossed at Simon in acts 8 thst if he did not repent he would perish.
The fact that it’s advancing the gospel to outside
Communities is a given. What else would its purpose have been? It’s purpose does not undermine its process.
We can say all day we don’t believe the power to lay on hands giving a spiritual blessing did not exist but we can only do that by erasing verses we don’t like.
Apostle means to be sent out. It does not define who was the one doing the sending. Junia was not sent out by Christ himself based on any verses. What fits best is that Junia was not an apostle sent out by Christ and she did not have that power but she was an amazing woman known as being an outstanding person among the opinions of the apostles.
I am a strong believer in staying outside of circle arguments. Some circling is necessary for discussions, but I feel like I have said most of what I have to say about apostleship and then nuances of the word.
Not only do we see the theological argument but we can experience the byproduct of these facts in our modern world.
Because the power was only given through the laying on of the apostles hands , and the apostles have all ceased, we should not see it happening anymore and we don’t.
There is not a single Christian on the planet that can walk into a hospital and begin to heal the sick instantly with their hands. There are not Christians dodging up three day old corpses that are medically certified dead and being brought back to life. We don’t see these supernaturally strong men snapping steel being healed and at peace with commands or hands. You don’t see someone who never spoke japanese once in their whole life suddenly divinely
Gifted with speaking it and giving a sermon to people in Japan.
We don’t see this, and it’s not because we are not in a third world country, it’s not because we lack faith, and it’s not because it was all just a biblical hyperbolic lie. It’s because the apostles sent out by Christ himself are all dead and can’t lay their hands on anyone.
I view the connection between the laying on of hands and receiving the Holy Spirit as similar to that between baptism and salvation. You can find verses that tie them together and make them seem sequential, but there are also other verses that don’t follow that pattern. I think there’s a danger in trying to systemize something that is described quite differently in different places.
No, I don’t want to erase any verses. But just as I wouldn’t claim mud was necessary for Jesus to heal someone, I don’t want to claim that laying on hands is required for someone to receive the Spirit. Some cases may use those means, but it’s not a rule.
The way early interpreters didn’t read it that way, despite a prevailing bias against women, makes it very hard to consider that reading a live possibility. If the Greek could naturally be read as only saying the apostles knew Junia, we wouldn’t have generations of later interpreters who took the drastic step of giving Junia a sex change in order to fit her with their theology.
1 Like
No one is ordained as a pastor based on any verses either. I don’t really understand how this entails, “therefore women are disqualified from certain kinds of roles and ministries.”
It’s interesting to me that you have no problem applying a culturally contextualized hermeneutic to Genesis, but when it comes to interpreting the New Testament, you cite people who use a literalist, decontextualized hermeneutic that gets into the nitty-gritty of the wording of certain verses and the absence of explicit permissions, and generally ignores the story and the redemptive arc of the gospel. That seems inconsistent.
Look, I grew up in and am still a member of a church that teaches male headship and soft complementarianism. I know there are good, godly people who love the Bible and are convinced they are doing what is best for women with that mindset. I have heard all the arguments and verses. I don’t find the position compelling or consistent with the overarching messages of Scripture. And I am utterly convinced that patriarchy, no matter how gentle or servant-hearted a form it takes, hurts women. For me personally, those male headship messages have been far more damaging to me spiritually and taken a lot more work to unpack and move on from than any of the YEC stuff I grew up with. And because of my present and past, debating Bible interpretations about women is emotionally draining and triggering in ways that arguing about other ideas is not. So, I think I am going to mostly bow out of this conversation.
3 Likes
It’s just one example though in some random story.
Laying on of hands is called a elementary teaching, and it’s something tied into prophecies and mentioned numerous times as resuming the hands of the apostles.
It’s completely different from what we see with laying of hands from elders. It’s something mostly glossed over because it does not fit many theological interpretations, especially those that still believe these things exists in this modern day.
I agree that these conversations get taxing. Almost all of them do. Regardless of how passionate we are about theology , or science, at times it just grows tiring when someone completely disagrees with you and believe that are in the better position theologically. Regardless of who is right, we can only present it and hope that overtime as it’s thought about more and more and studied out it the truth will be revealed. Even if one of changes our mind, or even if we never do, it almost never happens over a few days and a few convos. Normally takes weeks of internet so debating and deconstruction and counter arguments. Something I am trying to develop as a habit is that sometimes being right is not the same as being righteous. By that sometimes even if you’re right, the better solution is to withdraw a bit. I ran into a similar issue with another on here, I forget their name. That’s why I’m also going to be pulling out of the debate of apostleship and instead focus on a few of the other things I wanted to comment on and then pull out completely of the convo for the foreseeable future.
Mi, does that mean you want to think women are intrinsically weaker in the ways needed for leadership roles?
1 Like
No. It means that Paul lined out qualifications for different roles and that’s what determines my theology. I don’t create theology, Jesus and the Apostles did.
To me it’s similar to asking do it junk atheists are worse people than Christians. I don’t. There are plenty of fantastic loving people who are atheists that I feel should be given grace snd mercy and enter the restored world with eternal life. But I know that scripturally it’s not something I can justify. I can only justify that Jesus says those who place their faith in him will be saved.
It’s the name for all theology. Why are somethings forbidden and other things not.
Hmmm … presumably @Marshall too is allowing scripture to determine his theology. If you can dismiss his views as “thinking what he wants” why should anyone believe you’re not doing the same? I think you have a blind spot here my friend.
Viewing the point of theology as being to lay out what one must do and must refrain from doing doesn’t seem like the only perspective one might employ. If the Bible is God’s message to mankind, that intent seems a little less loving and lot more authoritarian than I would have expected.
2 Likes
All I can say is what I already said.
If you want to convince me that something is theology, then do it with scripture. I don’t see anyone doing that. I see what I believe is simply messy theology. I understand they may feel the same. It still does not change what I see in scripture and I don’t believe it’s written to accommodate dozens of possibilities.
I’m also not going to rewrite everything I already wrote. I believe what I believe because I see it clearly in scripture. I don’t see theirs. Ultimately that’s all we can do. That does not mean I want stand with what I see. What I can do is present it as clearly as I can’t, counter argue against then ideas under as wrong, and others can read it and draw opinions.
No need to do that as you know my interest in theology isn’t as fine grained as scripture. I would just hope you would agree that interpretation is still a huge part of understanding any bit of writing. Presumably you’re not selecting scripture which back what you already think by accident. Being told one has a blind spot in play is never a happy occasion but I’d still rather be told than not. Sorry if I over stepped.
I was not offended. It’s part of hermeneutics. Studying it out. Different people draw different conclusions. But just because we have imperfect brains does not mean I just think anything is possible. It just means that if believe something is true then it’s what I believe in. Same for everyone.
There are universalist who believes everyone is saved. There are traditionalist that believe Christians are saved and the rest tortured forever. There are annihilationist who believes Christians are saved and the rest are destroyed. We all gather the opinions we have based on what we believe in true. We are all able to have our minds convinced there is a better argument as well.
I’m not offended by anyone believing that women can be pastors. I’m not mad because of what they believe. The same verses that state women can’t be pastors are the same verses that says neither can I as a divorced man. What it does mean is that I think they wrong and that I would choose to find a church that does not do that.
I don’t use either of those words in any standard Christian way. I’m a universalist in that I assume every tradition based on religious experience is valid, not because it correctly predicts what is waiting for us beyond the curtain of death, but because they can enlighten your experience of the world and what supports God Belief right now.
But the question is: would you be offended if there was something intrinsic and unchangeable about you which caused people to lower their assessment of your capacities, judgement and reliability without knowing anything else about you.
1 Like