|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:52 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:38 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 2:30 pm
 |
|
|
|
I just would like to purpose an opening statment: "Please keep the peace." You have stated some very offending things in your last commit that I felt was unnecessary and hurtful. If we could move past libeling people and just have a friendly dialectic, there will be no need for me to leave this conversation. If, like in a previous post, my faith is undermined, I don't think I will continue chatting. ^,,^ God bless!
Aquatic_blue Women in authority is no way a form of anti-biblical feminism. There are simply people that take passages in the Bible meant for a specific place and time and apply them for every situation at anytime, which is clearly not the purpose if we study the Bible. Women in authority is not an act of rebellion against the church, either. Since man and woman were both made in God's image, wouldn't we have the same rights in ministry? For those that believe women shouldn't be in authority - I see this as an attack on God's word.
I do not believe that is a fair assessment, for several reasons. Firstly, entitling those who carry a Reformed view of gender roles within church and marriage attackers of the word is a very strong accusation indeed. Hopefully we can continue this friendly argument without having to worry about insults like that - my intent is not to slander the gospel, but to profess it. Perhaps you meant that my view is not in line with scripture? Surely, that is your argument, but it would be a shame if you sincerely believe I am here to bad-mouth the written work of our Lord. Secondly, it would help your case if your points were backed by scripture (as I believe I have espied later on in your post). Thirdly, you allege that only eisegesis and concretist interpretation of scripture leads to the view I have provided; however, you offer no evidence in support of this proclamation. Am I to find that later on? Finally, let's take a look at your abductive reasoning concerning the nature of the origin of Adam and Eve. Your line of thought, as I understand it, means to say that Adam and Eve shared the essence of God's image, and therefore, male and females should share equal authority in the modern church. If you already don't see the huge predicaments of this argumentation, I'll point them out:
1.) Of course, Adam and Eve originated in the image of their Creator, but that assessment is the result of Genesis 1:26, 27; if you continue reading onto chapter 2, you will see that while the essence of man is equal, the roles of the genders are not. Adam was made first (Genesis 2:7), Eve second (Genesis 2:22); Adam was made from dust (same), Eve from Adam (same); Adam was given headship over the garden (Genesis 2:15), Eve to be a helper of Adam (Genesis 2:20, 23) - note here that the equality of essence still remains: Eve is a "suitable" (i.e. equal) contributor, not a slave or pet like the other creatures, yet she is subservient to the headship of Adam: contributor, not leader, helper in the garden, not garden tender (contribution intimates a concurrence with something else; Adam was that force with which Eve was supposed to concur); Adam was punished with vocational labor and vain endeavors, Eve with painful child bearing and enmity from Adam (in the beginning, there was no issue of sex because Adam was a true man of God who led his wife in love, and Eve was a meek companion who did not question the hierarchy God had set up; now, men are pigs who lead women to death or, worse, destruction of their form, and women are female dogs who more and more masterfully imitate the evils of the man); plus, it is made quite clear in 1 Corinthians 11:7 is clear about the differing roles of male and female. So, biblically, your analyzation is false, both for marriage and church.
2.) This same chapter in 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy 2, and 1 Corinthians 14 cover that men and women do not share the same level of authority within the context of the church. Women are given authority to teach children and other women, but not men; men, on the other hand, are to become the elders of the church body under the headship of Christ.
3.) Were points 1 and 2 unknown or invalid, it is still a huge leap to assume from equal essence, equal authority. This is known, in logic, as an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Notice how you put your statement in a Socratic-Method form - you put it as an inquiry. Sure, it's a reasonable guess, assuming no epistemic defeater, that equal authority follows from equal essence, but that's still just a guess. You don't really know, and so you have no basis.
Actrealationalist That all depends. Women are not biblically obligated or inhibited from teaching/preaching to a crowd of women. However, if you meant preaching to men, I fear I must refer you to 1 Timothy 2, specifically verse 12.
Aquatic_blue Why should women only preach to other women? If we are all spiritually the same, why shouldn't a woman be able to preach to a congregation of men and women.
Well, in short, how 'bout cause God says so (in the bible)? But I covered this in more depth already above. See ^^^
Aquatic_blue There are some in-life subjects that women may not be able to understand so it's best for men to mention that subject to other men. However, in the same way, there are in-life subjects about women that men cannot understand. Therefore, a woman preaching to women is more effective in certain situations.
What subject of knowledge would be limited to a man? What subject of knowledge likewise for a woman? I don't think I've ever learned anything from a woman that I could not learn from a man, so if you expect me to accept this claim you'll have to provide substantial evidence. On a side note, your conclusion does not even make sense with your premises. "Men have exclusive knowledge; women have exclusive knowledge; therefore, women should teach women" makes absolutely no sense. I would presume that you meant to state that women should teach mean on the basis of this information exclusive to males, but there still remains that problem of evidence.
Additionally, even if there existed information that was only granted to women such that a man could only learn it from a woman, that would not give us justification to violate scripture. If scripture says women are not to teach, women are not to teach, regardless of any gender-restricted knowledge; and, in fact, scripture does: 1 Timothy 2:12. So, your notion is doubly unsound.
Aquatic_blue The Bible does not prohibit women from preaching to a congregation just as the Bible does not prohibit men from preaching to a congregation. I am afraid to say that you are misinformed by believing that women are told that they are not able to preach. Those who believe this not only have a problem with women in authority, but a problem with the Lord.
Again, that is a very insulting claim. It could posited that anyone who is incorrect in any way, shape, or form has a "problem with the Lord", but that is not particularly helpful, tactful in discussion, or gracefully put. Furthermore, it does not weaken the truth, but it certainly weakens one's image when they result to maligning someone's relationship with God instead of keeping with friendly discussion. You do not have to respect my position but I would ask that you respect me and my Christian faith. Thank you.
Aquatic_blue In 1 Timothy 2:11 - first half of 15 mentions a woman. This was addressing false prophets in the church because they did not know God's word. This was because society usually taught the men, and men had more of a right to education. Women didn't get the type of education that men were allowed. In their society, they deemed it more proper for a man to learn and a woman to listen. So this was scripture that was not meant to be forever until the end of time. This was about how Paul dealt with problems in the church. This "woman" that taught falsely wouldn't be a good option for a preacher. When it mentions Eve being deceived, this is simply a comparison. Paul is not saying that Adam was better than Eve or Eve was better than Adam. Eve is a good example of a woman who was deceived and someone everyone may be able to relate to since it's one of the earlier teachings in The Holy Bible. They are making a comparison to allow the church to recognize what it is exactly that is going on. The last half of verse 15 urges women to continue in faith, love, and holiness. It never discourages anything beside false doctrine that would apply to today.
And the exegetical basis for this is..? I think you ignored my preconsideration of this in my previous post. Not only is there no contextual evidence for this explanation (it's just pure speculation based on society at the time) - and in fact, it does not say "I do not permit such and such woman from preaching" or "toady, in this very time of modern society, and not forever to the end of time, certain women can not teach" -- no, it says, quite literally and clearly "I do not permit a woman to teach" - but we can use logic to disprove this adductive reasoning. We can apply a reductio ad absurdum to your explanation; that is, were we to apply your explanatory method to other parts of scritpure, which could just as well adapt, monstrosities would occur. For instance, it could be argued that the Ten Commandments were only relevant to the barbaric times in which they were formulated; or perhaps you'd care to think how destructive to proper doctrine it would be if we asserted that Paul's frequent opposition to homosexual intercourse, as seen in Romans 1, was painstakingly set on the societal problem of homosexuality that had set into Rome which mirrored Sodom and Gomorrah? Oops, I guess homosexuality and murder are okay, right? I mean, cause obviously the Ten Commandments, Romans 1, and 1 Timothy 2 are only relevant to the times they were written. And hey, let's take it a step further: I guess Christ is just a myth relevant to it's current society, the Jews obsessed with messianism and in a desperate servitude to the brutal Romans. Now, do you see where your "explanation" leads? I think I have demonstrated how indelible the absurdity of such an "only relevant to that time" explanation is.
Aquatic_blue Naturally, Paul or a pastor that has a strong foundation in God's word wouldn't want someone who is going to teach false doctrine to preach in their church, either, whether they were a man or a woman.
Yes, which is why he did negate the authority of a male pastor in one of the texts, though I remember not which - but again, this is irrelevant. The verse is unquestionably obvious: "I do not permit a woman to teach." If you are going to question the absoluteness of that statement, then why not "Thou shalt not kill" or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? It's ludicrous.
Aquatic_blue Society changes - so a message that was meant for a specific place in time may not be applicable a few hundred years down the line in the same way it was at that time. We can't make every passage of scripture applicable forever and ever if it was only meant for a certain group of people, and showing how the problem was solved.
I think I actually cringed when I read this. One of the defining elements of the reliability of the word of God is its universal application. It is immutable; it is unquestionably accurate. Paul doesn't say, "Some scripture is great at some occasions" or "When you want to cherry pick verses about gender, scripture is useful for certain societal makeups" - NO! He says "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). How much scripture? "All scripture". And does he place a qualifier, such as time, society, or culture in there? No. Scripture is true, all the time, anywhere, any way. The fact that you question that is not just irrational, it is bogus theology.
Aquatic_blue If women can't preach then why would they be able to do communion? You have contradicted yourself here. Before communion, there is usually a prayer for the bread (body) and grape juice (blood) before all the members partake. That would be putting women in a position of authority to prepare everyone's minds to partake of communion. Communion is effectively paired with scripture reading as well. Communion is important since that is one of the many ways we remember what Jesus Christ did for us. To put a woman in position to be in charge of communion would be a type of authority.
Ah, well, if you recall, I stated that it all depends on whether or not holding communion is a form of authority, so I did not contradict myself (because I made no definite claim this way or that about it in the first place). Notwithstanding, when you referred to communion, I thought you were speaking of the plate bearers, not the preacher's leading over passages of scripture and prayer. Obviously that would be authority. The question is whether or not plate bearing is.
Actrealationalist I do not really understand this. Were you using a hyperbole? That sounds a little harsh. Surely, you can not seriously be denoting a literal interception of Satan's power, though. We have no way of knowing whether or not Satan is enacting or not. Humans do just as much, if not more evil, than Satan, so I think it's hardly acknowledgeable that Satan effects your church at all. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. Either way, the roles of the sexes is not an essential issue and I assume that you will agree that we should be gracious to those that are wrong about that subject. Even to those who are incorrect belligerently or to those who are correct officiously, we should turn the other cheek. Although I do not grant assent with the woman who sometimes preaches before the mass of my church, I do not stand up and proclaim she is a Satanist or that Satan is working in the church or that they are in league with evil powers. If I felt so strongly about something that I held it to the same degree of depravity that I do Satan, I would leave or stand up against such evil. And I do not think that gender roles are that important, anyway, although I consider them up for debate.
Aquatic_blue I mentioned that "they (churches that support not allowing women in ministry) are allowing Satan to take more control." because they are silencing a group of people that have gifts, too. God gives us all gifts through the Holy Spirit. So, if a woman has the gift to teach and is great at bringing people to the Lord and she is silenced - that can make women fall and also men because an amazing gift from God is being silenced. If a man had the gift of prophecy and everyone told them, "Now is not the time." or, "How about you say this later?" or, "Be silent." that person may struggle because they are not allowed to use their God-given gift to support the ministry. Women in the church often try to suppress their gifts because a church twists doctrine to tell them that it's "wrong".
So, suppressing one's special abilities is on level with the great adversary of God, the lion who seeks to literally take our lives in the night - in other words, you believe you are actually justified in attributing to those who inhibit certain spiritual gifts the same responsibility for evil that Satan receives (such as, ruining people's lives, murdering people, leading people to despair, etc.)? Please be careful about what you say. You may think you are just being passionate, but there is a very thin line between passion and being a blowhard.
Aquatic_blue The thing we must realize is that when a church falls a little bit or has a huge weakness - Satan is likely to take advantage. Any church with a foundation gap is a target for Satan, and possibly other demonic and evil forces. satan tries to take advantage when a person and/or group is at their most vulnerable point. (The church I have discussed is one I no longer attend, but I do believe that the way the people act that they are falling and falling badly - man or woman, because they don't listen to the word of God).
For the third time, I think you completely missed much of what I said. How do you know Satan is even around with the same power he was granted in the times of Job? Do you have scriptural evidence? Do you have forensic? Maybe philosophical? I certainly have never ever discovered any reason to believe that Satan attacks churches. I have seen overwhelming evidence to believe that there are many superstitious, naive church members who are fooled into thinking so.
Aquatic_blue You say the role between genders isn't an essential issue, yet you refer to the idea of women preaching as anti-biblical feminism. So, in some way, it effects your beliefs. If not, you wouldn't be standing up for it and saying the things you are.
Of course it effects my beliefs! Haha, it's a biblical issue! My point is, if you are wrong about the subject, you're not going to hell. People who disbelieve Christ or blaspheme the Spirit are going to hell. People who think women should rule the world are not. It's a nonessential debate.
Aquatic_blue I do not need to be felt sorry for. I didn't choose where I was born and none of us can choose that. God places us somewhere for a reason. I've grown more by going through that experience first and then correcting later and realizing what was wrong with that belief system than I would've if I had believed the same thing my entire life.
^,,^ I am gladdened God was able to strengthen you and utilize you in your times of hardship. I pray He can do that with me.
Aquatic_blue A place that believes The Holy Bible is a myth and follow unbiblical practices is not considered a church - it is considered a cult.
LOL! Good point!
Aquatic_blue I still don't understand how you can be for spiritual equality between men and women yet do not support women preachers. Spiritual equality is believing that both genders are equal meaning they can both actively participate in ministry, right? Your beliefs seem to contradict at that point.
This is known as petitio principii, wherein we use the conclusion we are attempting to navigate to in order to navigate to it. It's like saying, the bible is true because it's true or "I'm always right. You know because I told ya' so!" In this case, you used your conclusion, that because we are spiritually equal we are therefore granted equal authority in church and marriage, to presuppose that it is tautologically true that spiritual equality includes authoritarian equality. You can not presuppose that unless you prove it in the first place, however, and I think I have already provided a profitable amount of biblical edifice as an opponent position.
Aquatic_blue God took a rib from man as he was in a deep sleep and made woman. They are made of the same flesh. Man and woman together through marriage become one flesh. That proves that we have spiritual equality as well. Genesis 2:2 - 24 NIV:
Yes, but again! Spiritual similitude, differential roles. We are made in the image of God, but we carry different burdens.
Actrealationalist Inversely, a wife's duty to God dictates that she appeases her husband first.
Aquatic_blue This is simply untrue. A wife's duty is a lot more than appeasing her spouse. Married couples are designed to work as a team - to work together, to support each other, to go through the challenges in life together, etc. You said your statement as if a man will always know God better than a woman will. I find some of your statements highly degrading and contradicting towards what you say. A woman's first priority in life is God, and so is man's. Everyone should have God as their first priority - always. If God is not the center of your relationship - that relationship is at great risk to fall apart in obvious and non-obvious ways. Women and men are to both respect each other, listen to each other, and not boss each other around, but work on a decision as a team effort.
1.) You stated that a wife's duty is a lot more than to appease her spouse - but I disagree. A women's duty is a much more than to appease her spouse, but the womanly burden of wife-hood is appeasing the groom, yes. So sure, married women have much more to do than concurring with the leadership of their husbands, but that is womanly duty, not of wife. The wife's duty is simply to follow God by supporting her husband.
2.) You tried to support your claim that a wife has many more duties than appeasing her spouse with "work together, support each other, [endure life together]", which can all be summed up as appeasing her spouse. ... So... you didn't really add anything. You just thought you did.
3.) I did not implicate that a husband will always be closer to God than his wife. You inferred that; and you presumed your inference correct without satisfactory evidence. Men and women can have an utterly equal relationship with Yahweh; in fact, I have seen fantastic marriage relationships wherein both husband and wife were immovably founded in God's truth and love, His word and Spirit. All I am arguing about is the role/authority relationship/comparisons of male and female. Again, I mean to converse peaceably and respectfully, though passionately; it would help if you would not insult me or assume words into my mouth.
4.) "I find some of your statements highly degrading and contradicting towards what you say." This sentence is just unintelligible to me.
5.) Of course, a woman's first priority in life is God, and so is man's. Again, there is the universal purposes of women (God at the center), but then there is the specific functions of the wife (God at the center who puts the husband as the head of the wife). Think about it in terms of artwork. An artist who sketches drawings uses charcoal, a pencil, or some other graphite type imaging utensil. But an artist who paints scenes uses such a utensil and a paintbrush. Likewise, a woman has God as her center. However, a married woman has both God as her center and man as her head. This is biblically sound: 1 Corinthians 7:1-7, 25-35. Especially, look at verses 32-35.
"But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord -- How he may please his wife. There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world -- how she may please her husband. And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction."
6.) Leadership is not about bossing people around. Leadership is actually a kind of servitude, like that idealized in the life of Christ, where Jesus both led his apostle and yet his leadership consisted of washing there feet. This is how a husband should "lead" - making the best decisions for his family (viz. the relationship to his wife). And a woman shouldn't feel bosed by this! Even to a bossy husband, a wife is commanded to be meek and servile. Where a man lead by serving, a woman serves by concurring. The man chooses and the woman supports the choice, with the very rare exception that that choice is in direct violation with God's word (e.g. a husband who struggles with sexual perversion and wants his wife to participate in orgies). Aside from such an exception, a husband is the head of the wife, and the wife is to serve her husband.
Now, let's just say, for clarification, that a woman A married a ruthless, cruel man B. This ungodly man has her constantly doing work and repays her with gruff comments about how she could do better. He rarely fulfills her physical needs and never grants her emotional satisfaction. Does that permit the woman to do evil and rebel? No. If that were true, we could justify anything by just saying, "Well he/she/it did worse, so I'm just getting them back" or "Well, hey, they are awful to me all the time, so they deserve it anyway". That is inexcusable behavior. Furthermore, it was the unwise woman A who chose (like a dolt) guy B in the first place - she only has herself to blame for choosing poorly.
Of course, I agree, once again, that such behavior from a husband is insatiable for a dog, yet that does not grant the right to women to disobey their husbands. Only a direct violation of scripture provides such an exemption.
Actrealationalist And the bible says that a woman is not allowed to leave him or rebel.
Aquatic_blue This is not true either. The Bible does not delight in divorce, and always want that to be the last option, and should hopefully never be an option. There are some Biblical stances for divorce such as Matthew 5:32, 19:9; 1 Corinthians 7:15). Although divorce is never encouraged, there are Biblical laws concerning it. I see a wife leaving a husband that hurts her as a Biblical stance because that's harmful for every aspect - physically (our temple), emotionally (our heart), mentally (mind), and spiritually (soul). God does call for peace as well. Even if a man is in a relationship where his wife causes harm to him is most likely fair grounds to divorce. Even in a horrific event - we must consult God to see what is right.
Wrong! Even in the case where a wife defaces her husband's temple, he is not granted the right to leave and must continue in godly leadership. The only thing that qualifies a married person to rebuke said marriage, is adulatory, which is actually indicated quite openly by the verses you gave.
Aquatic_blue This is posted earlier in my post, and to clarify my position on this - in Proverbs 31:10 through the end of the chapter this woman is happy and praised. Taking care of her household is a type of a authority. Her husband supports her and she supports her husband - there are obviously grounds of team work and respect for each other here.
Yes, I do not believe I have ever supported such an extreme view of woman as to demote them to an authority-less site of society. Rather, my point is that, as subsidiaries of church and marriage, woman are under the headship of man. They are to submit to their husbands, in marriage, and elders, in church. Those who are not married do not have to lead (guys) or concur to leadership (gals); as for church, if you dislike the leadership, you can always search out a new one.
Aquatic_blue Women being considered as "weak" I was referring to women in movies, books, or other forms of entertainment are seen as men having authority over them a lot of the time.
Em, no, I have never heard, seen, or read of this. Please provide three such occasions in common media. I mean, if you could even provide one, I might eat my hat. Such a thing is unheard of since the feminist movement obliterated good television.
Aquatic_blue We are often times considered too weak to defend ourselves or too inadequate to do subjects such as math and science. We are often seen as "less" and because America in the film industry glorifies in the things you mention - that is not the fault of only women. Just because women appear a certain way in forms of entertainment doesn't mean we're truly like that in real life. If you consider all women an object of lust then this is concerning because there is something here you need to work on, and you already realize that. Women's feelings about how we see ourselves in entertainment today is not "selfish" or "self-absorbed" when we feel degraded by how we are portrayed - in a false manner. A lot of times we are portrayed in a way that we will always need a man or that we're meant for cooking, cleaning, and raising children. I'm sure men also have trouble when it comes to media because a lot of men in entertainment are the boss, the lead role, and the authority figure. So a lot of men gain a sense of self-pride. The media effects us in all ways - it is not only women that it effects. It effects both sides and we can overcome these challenges through God and His word.
Again, I could not disagree with you more. While I admit that the history of intelligentsia, sports, and combat is dominated by men (and I accept that it's no coincidence in the case of the latter two) and that is sometimes abused as evidence to crow the power of men over women, that day is dying out and rarely takes place anymore. On the other hand, the amount of woman-worship spewed from the media today is just barf inducing. For instance, consider the film the Mean Girls, which is a mock-film of modern day high school girls. Or, consider the more commonly known film, Grease. In both, the countenance of woman is treated whore machines who gain power by manipulating men with sex. Yes, oh, how I more than fully agree that this image is not just the result of women - the dastardly view of men has corrupted women greatly, of course! For we are the leaders. Thus where we go down into the pit, women will follow. So, yes, I agree; men are also at fault. But that doesn't apologize the despicable standard of the female set up by Hollywood.
You say, well, simply because we appear A on the screen does not imply we are A - good. I agree. Although that is true, it is irrelevant. It is not the sheer factoid that women as portrayed in the media are terrors, but that our society is the image from which that portrayal is gained, and the bible backs this description (Romans 3:9-23). In fact, Provers 31 would lose 90% of its meaning were most women not utter pigs. It is this fact that makes lovely women of God stand out like gems in the mud.
Em, you completely misunderstood me about women being objects of lust. I claimed that this was society's view, including and particularly women themselves.
Yes, I am more than sure that the media has a poor affect on men - but is that relevant? No. The subject here is society's treatment of women, not men. Also, I'd like to see those three examples of common chauvinism in the media. wink You might just see me get to eat my hat, but I doubt it.
Aquatic_blue I should have been more specific in my post when I said, "we see examples as women being considered "weak" a lot of the time." What I meant was in the media. I mention that in my original post if you read further about how society doesn't always go for the female hero type thing. However, it does happen. There were many strong women in the Bible that did have great authority because they were appointed by God.
Yeah, I'm not big on female Conaans. XD If you haven't noticed, men tend to be more built for action sequences. ^,,~ Xena the Warrior Princess is gross and unrealistic. The female heros of the bible were heroic in a female way - submissive, meek, intelligent, and politically adapt, not so manifested by martial arts as to take on ten men at once (very silly, in my opinion). This is very different to the crude woman heroes of today's age.
Actrealationalist Finally, your last point about God loving us is misplaced. God may love your dog and the rock in the world he created, but that does not make them equal. Now, I am not comparing the differences between man and a woman as equal to that of a rock and a dog. My point is, God's perfect love does not make anything equal. God loves the angels; yet we are to rule (be superior to) the angels at the end of times. I am reminded of a decent analogy my Roman Catholic friend offered: two cups can be completely full, yet they may not be of the same height. That is to say, God can fulfill everyone and yet not render everyone of equal stature, power, authority, etc.
Aquatic_blue" I did mentioned that God loves everybody, and that is not a misplaced statement. He died for everyone's sins. My point is that men and women are equal. I feel that you are trying to over-generalize the point I am trying to make. In my post, I did not mention that animals are equal to humans and that rocks are equal to humans. That is not the point I was making. If that was the point I was trying to make, I wouldn't have said, "Also, because man was created first doesn't make him more superior." because animals were also created before Adam was and the rest of creation, but that doesn't make it equal or worth more than men and women.
You ignored my entire point. You initially argued that because God loves both male and female, they must thus be equal entirely. This is a false line of reasoning most similar to the methodology imposed when you claimed that we must be equal in authority as a result of our same essence (made in the image of God). I suggest you look up and peruse my points about that - the same points apply here. See ^^^
Actrealationalist Yes, but the bible's writings are not limited to culture, society, or the time it was written. If it were, we could drop Christianity itself. Though, I do give props to God for shaming the prejudiced philosophers of the time who supported such nonsense.
["Aquatic_blue"]The Holy Bible's writings if we read closely have different points - some are points that are meant to be the same eternally. Other times, there are points that were made for a specific place and time, and were most likely placed in the Bible to help aid churches when certain problems arose or how Paul dealt with those issues and still showed compassion for the people. Culture, society, and the time it was written can make all the difference. Society changes, culture changes, and over time - things change - so why would these factors not be important? Biblical history is key to truly understanding God's message.
I agree to some extent, but issued commands about behavior is not a matter of particulars. When God says, Don't murder, it is universal. When God says, I saved you, it is universal. Likewise, when God commands that women refrain from teaching in church and that the function of wife-hood is submission to the husband, it is universal. If you disagree, see my reductio ad absurdum posted above. See ^^^
Aquatic_blue In the verses, I am simply saying that women in the Bible had great honors and could be appointed in authority. Also, with a mix of society's ideas that women were weak or worthless. The point of the sentence wasn't' to give a full sermon, but to display that women could be strong in God, too.
No, God didn't give them authority; He gave them a place in his plan, a spot in history. Winning a football championship is hardly the same as being a king - one is success, the other is authority. You are conflating the two.
Aquatic_blue Galatians 3:28 is not limited to the end times. This is scripture that applies to us today. God see's us this way today - spritiually equal both man and woman. No where in Galatians 3 does it say "In the end times you will all be spiritually equal." That is a twist on scripture and a misconception. Through that passsage, it mentions the law and promises we are given to belong to Christ.
Really? So, genes don't exist? Cultures don't exist? Our genders are just an illusion, am I supposed to believe, then? Nonsense. Galatians 3:28 is about the end of times. If it were true now, why is there a place called Israel, a class system in society, and remaining male and female anatomies? Obviously your interpretation is botched.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Aug 01, 2012 6:38 pm
|
|
|
 |
I am not sure what I said that was offensive because what I said was the truth as far as God's word is concerned. I did not commit any act of libel against you. I simply answered what you had to say about my quotes and explained further in areas asked.
Quote: Firstly, entitling those who carry a Reformed view of gender roles within church and marriage attackers of the word is a very strong accusation indeed. Hopefully we can continue this friendly argument without having to worry about insults like that - my intent is not to slander the gospel, but to profess it. Perhaps you meant that my view is not in line with scripture? Surely, that is your argument, but it would be a shame if you sincerely believe I am here to bad-mouth the written work of our Lord.
I was in no way attacking God's word. I was simply explaining it's true context. Also, it's kind of funny that I never mentioned you were here to slander the gospel. That is an accusation you have come up with on your own. I do believe that your view is not in line with scripture and have already explained why thoroughly and with detail.
Quote: Secondly, it would help your case if your points were backed by scripture (as I believe I have espied later on in your post).
I did use scripture and explained it thoroughly. I believe I have effectively backed up what is right by God's word.
Quote: Thirdly, you allege that only eisegesis and concretist interpretation of scripture leads to the view I have provided; however, you offer no evidence in support of this proclamation. Am I to find that later on?
I offered plenty of evidence, and answered all questions according to what you questioned. I confirm that The Holy Bible - God's word is plenty of evidence in support that women can be in authority in ministry and in life. If you drew nothing from the explanation I have given, then that indeed concerns me - perhaps some personal unbiased and untheoretical research on this matter is needed for your own benefit then?
Quote: 1.) Of course, Adam and Eve originated in the image of their Creator, but that assessment is the result of Genesis 1:26, 27; if you continue reading onto chapter 2, you will see that while the essence of man is equal, the roles of the genders are not. Adam was made first (Genesis 2:7), Eve second (Genesis 2:22); Adam was made from dust (same), Eve from Adam (same); Adam was given headship over the garden (Genesis 2:15), Eve to be a helper of Adam (Genesis 2:20, 23) - note here that the equality of essence still remains: Eve is a "suitable" (i.e. equal) contributor, not a slave or pet like the other creatures, yet she is subservient to the headship of Adam: contributor, not leader, helper in the garden, not garden tender (contribution intimates a concurrence with something else; Adam was that force with which Eve was supposed to concur); Adam was punished with vocational labor and vain endeavors, Eve with painful child bearing and enmity from Adam (in the beginning, there was no issue of sex because Adam was a true man of God who led his wife in love, and Eve was a meek companion who did not question the hierarchy God had set up; now, men are pigs who lead women to death or, worse, destruction of their form, and women are female dogs who more and more masterfully imitate the evils of the man); plus, it is made quite clear in 1 Corinthians 11:7 is clear about the differing roles of male and female. So, biblically, your analyzation is false, both for marriage and church.
Just because Adam was created first does not make him more superior. The animals were created first - does that make them more superior than human beings? Eve is considered a "helper" in some texts, but that did not make her worth any less. Let's look at the "text" of "helper". Another word in the Hebrew phrase for this is translated "a helper suitable" as "'ezer kneged". Also, "kneged" as an adjective paired with the word "'ezer" means "equal". Woman was created to serve with Adam, not underneath. You even mentioned her as a "companion" - wouldn't that be putting her at equality with Adam?
Companions serve together. If Adam was a true man of God then Eve is a true woman of God. However, it depends on your definition of "true man/woman of God" because there was sin that came later, which resulted in the fall of man as we know. I believe it's twisted that you go as far to say that women are dogs. God loves everybody as he made them - he does not
see a man or a woman as an animal or beast. Do you believe that God has a bias against women - his own creation? We are to do our best to be as Jesus was and to love like God does.
God loves both woman and man alike - everybody - just as His word says. If God loves woman and man, does that say to you that there's something you need to work on and reconsider? The analyzation posted is not false as far as the interpretations I put together. That is God's truth and His word. I did not analyze marriage as that is not part of this debate. The debate is simply equality between man and woman. I never mentioned marriage, and even if I did mention it - it would be God's definition of marriage.
Quote: 2.) This same chapter in 1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy 2, and 1 Corinthians 14 cover that men and women do not share the same level of authority within the context of the church. Women are given authority to teach children and other women, but not men; men, on the other hand, are to become the elders of the church body under the headship of Christ.
You see it this way either by personal choice or it's influenced on you in some way. Men and women both have rights to the same levels of authority in this world and in ministry. Women are for so much more than only teaching their children and other women. The gifts of The Holy Spirit are
given to everybody - so why silence women from using their gifts?
What about the women in The Holy Bible that did have
authority such as Deborah?
Why is it that women were the first to spread the news about Jesus raising from the dead? They saw Jesus and went to tell everybody!
The word "preaching" also means "to teach". So, what about women who are teachers in schools? What about women college professors? They teach grown men and women. What about women who teach Sunday School? If a woman can't preach/teach in a church, but she can teach in a classroom - those are highly contradicting facts.
What about the woman at Bethany who anointed Jesus?
John 12:1 - 8 NIV:
Six days before the Passover, Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him.
Then Mary took about a pint of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.” He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.
“Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. “It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”
*This woman had done something great for Jesus and when Judas objected - Jesus mentioned it being the right thing to do. She was able to boldly serve Jesus.
Quote: 3.) Were points 1 and 2 unknown or invalid, it is still a huge leap to assume from equal essence, equal authority. This is known, in logic, as an argumentum ad ignorantiam. Notice how you put your statement in a Socratic-Method form - you put it as an inquiry. Sure, it's a reasonable guess, assuming no epistemic defeater, that equal authority follows from equal essence, but that's still just a guess. You don't really know, and so you have no basis.
I don't see logic having a solid place in Christianity or in The Holy Bible because we live by faith and God works in mysterious ways - we aren't always meant to understand them and definitely can't always understand them by logic.
Miracles aren't "logical" either because they are a miraculous happening from God that is only spiritually possibly by His hand and beyond physical explanation.
Hebrews 11:1 NIV:
Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.
Isaiah 55:8 - 9 NIV:
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
neither are your ways my ways,”
declares the Lord.
“As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.
*May I note that since you mention the "Socratic-Method" form - a lot of philosophers especially of Greek and Roman times were anti-women whether it was in general or only in authority. So, that doesn't necessarily help your case:
"Females are inferior in goodness to males." - Plato
"Separate from the female, since it is something better and more divine." - Aristotle
"Women are a shameless set, the vilest creatures going." -Aristophanes (The Lysistrata)
"Clever women are dangerous." - Euripides
"As a result of visions, many people choke to death, more women than men, for the nature of women is less courageous and is weaker." - Hippocrates
"Mistresses we keep for the sake of pleasure, concubines for the daily care of our persons, but wives to bear us legitimate children." - Demosthenes
*By my faith and God's word - I know that women are allowed the same rights as men. If you look back in culture and see different roles, that isn't because of God - that's because of how society was shaped by humans - men in particular at certain times because they were the only ones allowed in authority.
Quote: Well, in short, how 'bout cause God says so (in the bible)? But I covered this in more depth already above. See ^^^
Then perhaps you should take another look at my post where I explained why women can preach and that verse you have taken out of context.
Quote: What subject of knowledge would be limited to a man? What subject of knowledge likewise for a woman? I don't think I've ever learned anything from a woman that I could not learn from a man, so if you expect me to accept this claim you'll have to provide substantial evidence. On a side note, your conclusion does not even make sense with your premises. "Men have exclusive knowledge; women have exclusive knowledge; therefore, women should teach women" makes absolutely no sense. I would presume that you meant to state that women should teach mean on the basis of this information exclusive to males, but there still remains that problem of evidence. Additionally, even if there existed information that was only granted to women such that a man could only learn it from a woman, that would not give us justification to violate scripture. If scripture says women are not to teach, women are not to teach, regardless of any gender-restricted knowledge; and, in fact, scripture does: 1 Timothy 2:12. So, your notion is doubly unsound.
Some subjects that a man may not be able to understand are feelings of certain body changes - likewise for men. There are some subjects that are the same that people see in a different light such as finances, certain sins, emotions on certain matters, etc. In other words, if you had a group of men in a room and someone teaches about changes a pregnant woman goes through, a man wouldn't be able to fully grasp because he doesn't experience it first hand and may not find it interesting because he may see, "This doesn't apply to me." If you get a group of women together who are pregnant or want to become pregnant in a pregnancy class, they are more likely to understand and note these changes as they happen because it's happening to them. Or let's say there's a group of guys talking about girls and you put one girl in the room - she may not care and get annoyed because it's talking about her gender in a certain way. Likewise for girls standing around talking about guys - most guys would not be interested and find it obnoxious and weird as well. Things such as this. When I posted this - it was not as a threatening remark. This was as a truth because men can't always understand certain things about women just as women can't always understand certain things about men. There are similar situations we go through that we both understand from a different perspective.
Quote: "Men have exclusive knowledge; women have exclusive knowledge; therefore, women should teach women" makes absolutely no sense.
Actually, this does make sense. Men and women are both knowledgeable and gain more knowledge and turn that into wisdom as they read God's word and come to understand it. Because we are all one in the body of Christ we should all be able to participate in ministry.
Quote: If scripture says women are not to teach, women are not to teach, regardless of any gender-restricted knowledge; and, in fact, scripture does: 1 Timothy 2:12. So, your notion is doubly unsound.
Once again, you are missing the point. Perhaps refer to the explanation on that that I posted earlier for a better understanding.
Quote: Again, that is a very insulting claim. It could posited that anyone who is incorrect in any way, shape, or form has a "problem with the Lord", but that is not particularly helpful, tactful in discussion, or gracefully put. Furthermore, it does not weaken the truth, but it certainly weakens one's image when they result to maligning someone's relationship with God instead of keeping with friendly discussion. You do not have to respect my position but I would ask that you respect me and my Christian faith. Thank you.
If you consider those types of things I say insulting - you do not have a problem with only women specifically, you have a problem with the Lord. If God's word insults you then that's incredibly concerning to me.
This is a debate topic - I can see we believe different ways and am simply answering to sentences you have said or asked. Now, does answering a simple question with my answer make it insulting because you don't believe the same way or because I'm a woman? You asked for an answer or made a certain debatable remark so I responded - that is considered insulting?
Quote: And the exegetical basis for this is..? I think you ignored my preconsideration of this in my previous post. Not only is there no contextual evidence for this explanation (it's just pure speculation based on society at the time) - and in fact, it does not say "I do not permit such and such woman from preaching" or "toady, in this very time of modern society, and not forever to the end of time, certain women can not teach" -- no, it says, quite literally and clearly "I do not permit a woman to teach"
There is plenty of basis including what Paul actually meant at the time. YOu only picked out part of what I said in my last post. If you truly read Pauls writing for what it is, you will find that he supported women preaching, and did not support false doctrine. Women did not have the advantage of proper education as the men did. Therefore, it was easier for a woman to not understand because she didn't have that privelege in that society. This was only meant for that time period because Paul was speaking to a congregation on a certain issue. Sadly, people don't see the true message Paul was trying to preach. Wouldn't any pastor try to stop someone from teaching false doctrine in their congregation? I'm sure a good one would say something about it. Paul encouraged everyone to preach, and at that time period encouraged men to teach their wives.
There's a verse that should be considered, too:
Titus 2:1 - 6 NIV:
You, however, must teach what is appropriate to sound doctrine. Teach the older men to be temperate, worthy of respect, self-controlled, and sound in faith, in love and in endurance.
Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled.
*Here it encourages men and women to teach what is good.
Quote: For instance, it could be argued that the Ten Commandments were only relevant to the barbaric times in which they were formulated; or perhaps you'd care to think how destructive to proper doctrine it would be if we asserted that Paul's frequent opposition to homosexual intercourse, as seen in Romans 1, was painstakingly set on the societal problem of homosexuality that had set into Rome which mirrored Sodom and Gomorrah? Oops, I guess homosexuality and murder are okay, right? I mean, cause obviously the Ten Commandments, Romans 1, and 1 Timothy 2 are only relevant to the times they were written. And hey, let's take it a step further: I guess Christ is just a myth relevant to it's current society, the Jews obsessed with messianism and in a desperate servitude to the brutal Romans. Now, do you see where your "explanation" leads? I think I have demonstrated how indelible the absurdity of such an "only relevant to that time" explanation is.
The 10 Commandments could be argued over, but what does that have to do with the debate matter? That's off topic. I never mentioned these other debatable topics that you speak of. I never said that sin was okay. You are twisting what I have to say with a closed mind and presenting it to how you want it to sound or look like. My explanation led nothing to what you are saying it does. This shows you have a lot of mindsets that you need to work on between you and God.
I can't expect you to understand what God's word truly says unless you're willing to open your mind and accept that - to let it in and learn about it.
Quote: If you are going to question the absoluteness of that statement, then why not "Thou shalt not kill" or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? It's ludicrous.
That's just the thing, though. That statement isn't an absolute truth that will always apply until the end of time. It's saddening that people take every part of The Holy Bible so literally when certain parts were only meant for a certain place and a certain time and were an important record to show us how to deal with issues in a ministry or to show us how God helped someone overcome to spread good into the world.
Quote: I think I actually cringed when I read this. One of the defining elements of the reliability of the word of God is its universal application. It is immutable; it is unquestionably accurate. Paul doesn't say, "Some scripture is great at some occasions" or "When you want to cherry pick verses about gender, scripture is useful for certain societal makeups" - NO! He says "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). How much scripture? "All scripture". And does he place a qualifier, such as time, society, or culture in there? No. Scripture is true, all the time, anywhere, any way. The fact that you question that is not just irrational, it is bogus theology.
Scripture remains, and the meaning of that scripture has a true meaning that we have to get down to. To find the time, society, culture, etc. as well as the who, what, where when, and why then we can understand scripture. If we don't find that true meaning, or believe it to be a way it isn't then it's twisting what scripture says. All scripture has an audience and Paul's audience in this case was a church. Just because women in that congregation did not have the same rights to education as women did does not mean it's the same way a few thousand years down the road. Society changes while the history remains. If society hasn't changed at all then why is it that the justice system in the world doesn't follow how it was in the Old or New Testament? The qualifiers are clearly placed if you read the surrounding context and it gives you a lot more information.
Quote: So, suppressing one's special abilities is on level with the great adversary of God, the lion who seeks to literally take our lives in the night - in other words, you believe you are actually justified in attributing to those who inhibit certain spiritual gifts the same responsibility for evil that Satan receives (such as, ruining people's lives, murdering people, leading people to despair, etc.)? Please be careful about what you say. You may think you are just being passionate, but there is a very thin line between passion and being a blowhard.
God gives us all gifts through The Holy Spirit, if we suppress those gifts that are given to us then that would be denying The Holy Spirit:
Mark 3:28 - 29 NIV:
Truly I tell you, people can be forgiven all their sins and every slander they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; they are guilty of an eternal sin.”
*We are supposed to answer the calling God has for us and use the gifts that God gives us to complete those duties. If we deny The Holy Spirit and the gifts by suppressing them or simply not believing, that is a dangerous concept. I am saying that suppressing these gifts is a type of blasphemy against The Holy Spirit because that wastes a good gift and ignores responsibility. I am saying that gift suppression from The Holy Spirit can make us more vulnerable in the Devil's eyes because we are ignoring something God wants us to do. My intention is to tell the truth here. I will not sugar coat anything about this matter.
Quote: For the third time, I think you completely missed much of what I said. How do you know Satan is even around with the same power he was granted in the times of Job? Do you have scriptural evidence? Do you have forensic? Maybe philosophical? I certainly have never ever discovered any reason to believe that Satan attacks churches. I have seen overwhelming evidence to believe that there are many superstitious, naive church members who are fooled into thinking so.
I have read what you said, and you fail to validate your point. However, my beliefs remain as they are - they cannot be swayed. I did not miss what you said - I dismissed it because it is not the truth and question it.
It's a sad thing thing to underestimate Satan because at that point, you wouldn't be on your guard to put on God's armor and battle against Satan. Satan will twist God's words against an individual, try to put temptation in a person's path, and attack those not doing God's will. I believe that Satan is the same as he ever was and will remain the same. Scriptural evidence is all around when The Holy Bible mentions Satan many times - who he is, why he is evil, and that he is after believers and non-believers alike. I believe Satan attacks churches - especially if they have major vulnerable points. I am not fooled because The Holy Bible tells us to always be on our guard (James 4:7 - 8 ) and to be strong in the Lord so that we may conquer over evil (Ephesians 6:10 - 18 ). If you don't believe Satan will attack you or people that have spiritual vulnerabilities then how will you know when to stand against Satan?
*You know, I have given you plenty of information for you to use to see my matter of the situation. It is clear that we don't agree on this matter. The rest of your post basically goes over the same points over and over again that I have already covered with a clear, scriptural basis and explanation. It is you who choose to ignore it, and ignore God's word. Sadly, I am sure that you know what God's true word is, and just don't want to accept the parts your physical mind doesn't want you to agree with considering the way you are writing. If you feel you have fallen away - it's never too late to get back on the right track. I couldn't just turn my old beliefs on a whim, either. I had to sincerely pray about it for quite a while and make sure that was the right thing to do before turning around - read it over, do some personal studies about the matter with a clear mind and remove any personal bias, theories, or logic. Understand the words used and search back to the original contexts. However, I'm sure you understand these self-study techniques already. I encourage you to study as much as possible so God's true meaning will become animated in your mind, and as clear as day. Until then, I'll still be praying for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:06 pm
|
|
|
|
Aoife Wow, building a doctrine from one scripture is never a good idea, ya know? confused
Because? Also, I don't know about you, but God only has to tell me once. I don't need to be told a truth twice in scripture to believe it. If it were required that more than one verse is necessary to accept the truth therein proposed then we ought to throw away half the bible.
Quote: Especially when there are so many examples of women apostles, teachers, disciples spreading good news (preaching!) and the Bible says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."
Name one female apostle. Also, that passage from Galatians is referring to future time, not our current state.
Quote: There is a reason in the lineage of Jesus some women are mentioned even though this ISN'T the normal way genealogies were listed then, they were normally only males listed...why would God make a point to do that do you think? I don't think He wanted women to not preach personally.
Okay, please show that there were women mentioned in the lineage of the Messiah and that this was unusual to lines specific to ancient Judaism. Then please proceed to demonstrate how that effects the subject.
Quote: Frankly while I think this will not sway anyone's opinion if you hold firm beliefs to the contrary, I think it's one of those things that will be disagreed on yet we can all still get to heaven over. 3nodding
^,,^ I agree. This is a nonessential issue. We can all remain close brothers and sisters in Christ despite disagreement over this topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:28 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 02, 2012 8:49 pm
|
|
|
|
Actrealationalist Quote: I don't see logic having a solid place in Christianity or in The Holy Bible I rest my case. If you openly admit that you are okay with illogicality, then why are you even debating? The entire point of debate is to provide sound (i.e. logical and factual) argumentation of a point. Let me give you a demonstration of non-logical argumentation: "Woman are subject to men because they are." According to you, I've just won the debate, because hey! logic doesn't have any place right? (Entire chortle here.) Also, what you've said is not only blatantly dumb, it's terrifying. It's these sort of comments that produce atheists. It's your dogmatic avoidance of logic and science that are turning people away from God. I can't tell you how many superstitious people like you have been excuses for people to completely turn away from the Gospel. I pray God enlightens you so you quit harming the image of the church. God bless (I'm out).
Your case is not at rest. Logic doesn't have a solid stand point in every aspect here due to the fact that a lot of it is spiritual. The spiritual realm isn't logical to those in the physical realm. This is why they call the "spiritual realm" the unknown. If you believe everything was explained by logic - there would be no mystery to God, would there? If it's proof you seek - you aren't going to find your solid "proof" anywhere else. There are some things in the physical plane and the spiritual plane that I believe we are not meant to understand 100%. There is no logic to prove miracles or demonic possession. It can't be done.
I gladly admit that I live by faith, and do not need logic to make myself feel secure in my stance. Faith in God is all I need. I gave reasoning and facts, which were in God's word. We have debates on these matters to see the different stand points - these debates aren't a matter between winning or losing. Instead, they are about looking at different standpoints and why others agree or disagree with certain perspectives.
If you feel you need to be 'logical' then it's possible that you could be wrong, right? If you feel that you are logical - what about give me 1% and you hang onto your 99%? Now, let's say you get to Heaven firm in your belief that women cannot preach and you are right then okay. However, let's say that the 1% happens where God wonders why you did not encourage women in ministry and put them down. What then? Are you willing to risk that 1%? Even if as Christians we should be 100% firm in God's word?
There is nothing you can say that will make me change my stance. You can hate it all you want, but it won't do you any good to stay on that view point forever. I am not what one would consider "superstitious" since the Bible mentions such things as not good and I choose to steer clear of them. If someone runs away from a person who speaks God's truth to them - they will end up where all those who "run away" go - the wilderness. From that point, only God can help you out of that wilderness and back into the light.
God enlightens me every time I study His word. My only question is, does He still enlighten you at all? Or, has that enlightenment fled in another direction? I'm sure that there are many that care for your beliefs and what direction you are headed in life - like family and friends. It is never too late to turn back, and truly believe and accept God's word. Don't make the mistake that no one is concerned about your soul.
God bless!
EDIT: Regarding your PM, I apologize if some of the sentences I mentioned were attacking you as an individual, or instances where I may have gotten carried away due to the fact that this is a serious Biblical matter that some don't see through. I also apologize if I had a lack of patience regarding explaining this matter. Even so, I still remain strong that God's word tells us that men and women both are allowed to authority rights in ministry, and that won't change. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
