Faith

by **vtmarik** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:30 am

OnlyAmbrose wrote:it IS considered untraditional by most Churches to have a woman pastor. The Bible is pretty explicit in stating that women are not the dominant gender, and it is generally noted that the 12 disciples were all men.

Yeah, but we've gotta move past some of these arcane ideas. I mean, why can't women run the church?

Is it because Eve tempted Adam? Because that was a long freaking time ago, let it go already!

by **jay_a2j** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:05 am

vtmarik wrote:
OnlyAmbrose wrote:it IS considered untraditional by most Churches to have a woman pastor. The Bible is pretty explicit in stating that women are not the dominant gender, and it is generally noted that the 12 disciples were all men.

Yeah, but we've gotta move past some of these arcane ideas. I mean, why can't women run the church?

Is it because Eve tempted Adam? Because that was a long freaking time ago, let it go already!

Not to get too far into this contraversial issue but God set up a "chain of command" if you will. Man is the head of the House. Jesus is the head of the church. I have heard that a woman can preach only if she has the permission of man. (This would be a "guest preacher") I don't know, I myself am uncomfortable with a woman having her own church (for scriptural reasons).

by **Paulicus** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:13 am

OnlyAmbrose wrote:Is it because Eve tempted Adam? Because that was a long freaking time ago, let it go already!

Yes , Yes! You are correct.

1 Timothy 2:11 "11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formend first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was decived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith, love and hoiliness with propriety.

"NIV" version

But in this context it gives a very cheuvanistic veiw to it... There are many other parts that say to honor women.

by **reverend_kyle** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:17 am

How can you believe in god but not believe in women being pastors?

Dear god, you people give christians a bad name.

by **Paulicus** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:20 am

I personally would not be opposed, but we are comanded differently.

by **vtmarik** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:52 am

jay_a2j wrote:Not to get too far into this contraversial issue but God set up a "chain of command" if you will. Man is the head of the House. Jesus is the head of the church. I have heard that a woman can preach only if she has the permission of man. (This would be a "guest preacher") I don't know, I myself am uncomfortable with a woman having her own church (for scriptural reasons).

No wonder women couldn't vote until 1920.

Paulicus wrote: Yes , Yes! You are correct.

1 Timothy 2:11 "11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formend first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was decived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith, love and hoiliness with propriety.

"NIV" version

But in this context it gives a very cheuvanistic veiw to it... There are many other parts that say to honor women.

That is very chauvinistic. As a feminist I take great exception to that idea. That's the sort of teaching that requires muslim women to wear burkas and get acid splashed on them. Sure, they take it to the extreme, but it's not a far cry from the literal biblical interpretation.

by **jay_a2j** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:26 am

reverend_kyle wrote:How can you believe in god but not believe in women being pastors?

And these are related how? Its like asking how can you read the Bible and not believe in Budah?

by **reverend_kyle** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:35 am

jay_a2j wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:How can you believe in god but not believe in women being pastors?

And these are related how? Its like asking how can you read the Bible and not believe in Budah?

Well, its more of... how can you believe the all merciful and all loving... could favor one sex over the other?

by **jay_a2j** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:42 am

reverend_kyle wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:How can you believe in god but not believe in women being pastors?

And these are related how? Its like asking how can you read the Bible and not believe in Budah?

Well, its more of... how can you believe the all merciful and all loving... could favor one sex over the other?

Because thats what His word says. And I wouldn't use the term "favor". Does a General "favor" a Lt. over a Sgt? And does that make a Sgt. unimportant? Absolutly not.

by **reverend_kyle** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:58 am

jay_a2j wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:How can you believe in god but not believe in women being pastors?

And these are related how? Its like asking how can you read the Bible and not believe in Budah?

Well, its more of... how can you believe the all merciful and all loving... could favor one sex over the other?

Because thats what His word says. And I wouldn't use the term "favor". Does a General "favor" a Lt. over a Sgt? And does that make a Sgt. unimportant? Absolutly not.

unimportant= no

less important=yes

I'm quite sure that jesus was more for the equality...

by **jay_a2j** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:04 am

reverend_kyle wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:How can you believe in god but not believe in women being pastors?

And these are related how? Its like asking how can you read the Bible and not believe in Budah?

Well, its more of... how can you believe the all merciful and all loving... could favor one sex over the other?

Because thats what His word says. And I wouldn't use the term "favor". Does a General "favor" a Lt. over a Sgt? And does that make a Sgt. unimportant? Absolutly not.

unimportant= no

less important=yes

I'm quite sure that jesus was more for the equality...

Lets agree to disagree. I do not find a Sgt. less important than a Lt. A Lt. is worthless if there is no Sgt. to oversee the Privates. :wink:

by **reverend_kyle** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 4:09 am

jay_a2j wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
reverend_kyle wrote:How can you believe in god but not believe in women being pastors?

And these are related how? Its like asking how can you read the Bible and not believe in Budah?

Well, its more of... how can you believe the all merciful and all loving... could favor one sex over the other?

Because thats what His word says. And I wouldn't use the term "favor". Does a General "favor" a Lt. over a Sgt? And does that make a Sgt. unimportant? Absolutly not.

unimportant= no

less important=yes

I'm quite sure that jesus was more for the equality...

Lets agree to disagree. I do not find a Sgt. less important than a Lt. A Lt. is worthless if there is no Sgt. to oversee the Privates.

I can agree there, because I am not super educated on the military, and all I really have knowledge about is what cc teaches me about ranks.

by **OwlLawyer** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:56 am

Um.... how do you know the Bible is right?

Here's the thing, you take these passages as ... um... well... Gospel truth... and you say "Nothing I can do, it's what the Bible says."

Bullshit.

The Bible was transcribed, translate, retranslated and decided upon by man. It is a wonderful book with symbolic lessons in it... but it is not a textbook to be read literally.

You hide behind the Bible because you are a chauvenist mysoginist (sp) who wants a reason to keep women down.

Jesus also hung out with Mary Magdalene and many other women. His mother was a very important part of his life. You ignore those parts of the Bible. You use religion and god as a way to keep people down. It's fucking sickening.

by **stache hag** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:59 am

I just saw the Virgin Mother in my window.

by **OwlLawyer** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:04 am

Luke wrote:Soon afterward he went on through cities and villages, proclaiming and bringing the good news of the kingdom of God. And the twelve were with him, 2and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out, 3and Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager, and Susanna, and many others, who provided for them[a] out of their means

by **OwlLawyer** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:08 am

Oh, and who were the first two that were called upon to preach the news that Jesus was risen?

Oh right... it was two women... but you ignore that. After all, it's only from the Gospel.

by **stache hag** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:14 am

by **jay_a2j** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 12:46 pm

OwlLawyer wrote:Oh, and who were the first two that were called upon to preach the news that Jesus was risen?

Oh right... it was two women... but you ignore that. After all, it's only from the Gospel.

Ok first of all I'm not "putting women down". God has put man at the head of the house. Not that women are lesser then men or that men should rule over women. It is a position that God has appointed man within the household/church. (If memory serves me well the women used to not be allowed to sit with the men in the temple... someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to give inacurate information) Jesus is the head of the Church. Thats just the way God set it up.

As for the two women did they "preach" the news about Christs' resurection or did they just go tell the disciples that He was risen?

by **OwlLawyer** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:14 pm

Um... what's the difference... and I asked many more questions than you answered.

Why do you read the Bible literally?

by **Knight of Orient** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:22 pm

I dont have any problem with females being pastors. Men are placed at the Head of the household, yes. But when a ministry like Joyce Meyers comes around, with Joyce Meyer as the head, I dont see an issue. God never said that women werent allowed to be pastors and such. At my church, its more out of respect for the pastor and his family, but sometimes, she teaches if the pastor is out of town. If they are annointed of God, let them speak.

by **OwlLawyer** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 1:28 pm

And what, exactly, does it mean that men are head of the house?

And please, someone answer me and justify why the Bible is to be read literally.

by **vtmarik** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:01 pm

jay_a2j wrote:Ok first of all I'm not "putting women down". God has put man at the head of the house. Not that women are lesser then men or that men should rule over women.

Ok, now I know that you're making stuff up.

1 Timothy 2:11-15 -- NIV wrote: "11 A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15 But women will be saved through childbearing-if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

If someone is ordered to be submissive and quiet means that they're being ordered to shut up and do as they're told, how is that not making women lesser than men?

This passage says "Women are not allowed to have the same privileges as men because Eve tempted Adam and was created second to Adam. Women are thus unclean and sinful and therefore are permanently wicked. However, if a woman gives birth, she can be saved if she doesn't have sex again or violate the rules of silence and submission that I have laid upon her."

In other words it tells women to stay home, shut up, and have babies because that's all they're good for. It also says that the saving upon giving birth isn't automatic. If she, say, wants to have a career after having kids or wants to teach then there's a problem.

Here's another question raised from that, if women in the Church aren't allowed to teach men why are there nuns rapping kids on the knuckles with rulers in parochial schools?

It is a position that God has appointed man within the household/church. (If memory serves me well the women used to not be allowed to sit with the men in the temple... someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't want to give inacurate information) Jesus is the head of the Church. Thats just the way God set it up.

No, Jesus was the sacrifice and returned to heaven, Paul was the head of the Church. That's why we have dogmatic law, "Whatever you hold true on Earth, I'll hold true in Heaven." If Jesus was the head of the Church, he would've come back by now pissed as all hell. "Alright, that's it, Jesus is taking over again. You morons fucked it all up!"

by **OwlLawyer** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:08 pm

vt wrote:Here's another question raised from that, if women in the Church aren't allowed to teach men why are there nuns rapping kids on the knuckles with rulers in parochial schools?

Oh silly boy.... nuns are CATHOLIC! These fundamentalists aren't Catholic. They think nuns should be silent and submissive.

by **vtmarik** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:16 pm

OwlLawyer wrote:Oh silly boy.... nuns are CATHOLIC! These fundamentalists aren't Catholic. They think nuns should be silent and submissive.

Oh right, I forgot the thing that Truman and Jay said about the Catholic Church not being Christian.

Well, technically the Catholic church was the first Christian church (considering that Paul was the first Pope).

by **OwlLawyer** on Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:19 pm

Oh, I missed their statements about that... lol... funny, Catholics decided on the books of the Bible. Guess they got something right.

Faith

Who is online