Evidence for God from Science

Ivellious wrote:CallMeDave, I don't know your point about the fall. I get that Eve was deceived but it was not her act that condemned humanity. Only Adam's sin "counted" in the long run, so to speak.

You are right, Jesus did not discriminate, but every denomination of Christianity and numerous parts of the Bible itself do subjugate women to a lesser role, and the institution of Christianity has carried that role for 2000 years now. Even you saying that women shouldn't be allowed to be a church leader is kind of strange to me...What is the rationale? You say that the sexism in the Bible is a product of the times and culture of 2000 years ago, but it's ok to say that women shouldn't be allowed to be preachers even when that culture should have died out years ago?

It was adam and eve that both rebelled against God ; Eve directly and Adam was pursuaded by Eve to do the same.

You need to understand that the Bible reports on such things that were typical of that culture and does not necessarily condone them. In many instances, The Bible sets up fairness and equity on many issues such as Slaves and Owners.

The main reason why many denominations today allow women to be the Head of a Flock (Pastor of a church) is because Gods established way was for men to take the leadership role while women and children followed the leading of a man/husband . Its not that women are put down or arent capable, its just because that is the order which God established ... a President and Vice President so to speak . Theres some good reading on the Home Site with Answers for Atheists if you want to learn more about Women in the Christian Faith.

Ivellious wrote:CallMeDave, I don't know your point about the fall. I get that Eve was deceived but it was not her act that condemned humanity. Only Adam's sin "counted" in the long run, so to speak.

You are right, Jesus did not discriminate, but every denomination of Christianity and numerous parts of the Bible itself do subjugate women to a lesser role, and the institution of Christianity has carried that role for 2000 years now. Even you saying that women shouldn't be allowed to be a church leader is kind of strange to me...What is the rationale? You say that the sexism in the Bible is a product of the times and culture of 2000 years ago, but it's ok to say that women shouldn't be allowed to be preachers even when that culture should have died out years ago?

It was adam and eve that both rebelled against God ; Eve directly and Adam was pursuaded by Eve to do the same.

You need to understand that the Bible reports on such things that were typical of that culture and does not necessarily condone them. In many instances, The Bible sets up fairness and equity on many issues such as Slaves and Owners.

The main reason why many denominations today allow women to be the Head of a Flock (Pastor of a church) is because Gods established way was for men to take the leadership role while women and children followed the leading of a man/husband . Its not that women are put down or arent capable, its just because that is the order which God established ... a President and Vice President so to speak . Theres some good reading on the Home Site with Answers for Atheists if you want to learn more about Women in the Christian Faith.

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

CallMeDave wrote:

RickD wrote:I agree with others here that say women do have a role in churches. Most churches do have a kitchen, don't they?

Now, THAT is a sexist statement . Many women in our churches are good at teaching roles beyond the kitchen .

You're right, they can teach cooking classes.

Yes Dave you are right. That was a sexist statement, and I apologize. As far as teaching roles beyond the kitchen, as you mentioned, how about laundry classes?

Two sexist comments dont make a right . If youre married, run what you said here past your wife tonight and report back in the morning

The only reason why I don't like women preachers is because the man is the head of the household. I like to treat Church like a household, in my own personal opinion. I'm not saying God didn't create us unequal, I'm saying it more of a respect from a woman to a man.

neo-x wrote:The question is not about being submissive rick, in that sense, should we all be submissive to each other as some scriptures point out, but then does it mean we are not equal? It is what the spirit of God allows us to do or not. Banning someone from preaching should be done on spiritual merit. Not their physical characteristics which has nothing to do with the spirit of God and the work of Christ.

Neo, the point I'm making, is that Jesus was submissive to the Father's will, and those that believe women shouldn't be in authority over men, say that's because the woman should be submissive to the man in spiritual matters. It's not a matter of "equality", but order.

You are still dodging the point. What makes a man superior, in the "orderly" sense as you have pointed out? If a man has the spirit of God, and the women has it too... what's the difference when it comes to preaching?

RickD » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:56 am

neo-x wrote:
The question is not about being submissive rick, in that sense, should we all be submissive to each other as some scriptures point out, but then does it mean we are not equal? It is what the spirit of God allows us to do or not. Banning someone from preaching should be done on spiritual merit. Not their physical characteristics which has nothing to do with the spirit of God and the work of Christ.

Neo, the point I'm making, is that Jesus was submissive to the Father's will, and those that believe women shouldn't be in authority over men, say that's because the woman should be submissive to the man in spiritual matters. It's not a matter of "equality", but order.

I understand that Rick but what they fail to realize is that Jesus also said "I and the father are one." Hell, if I am to use this, I'd say, Jesus was submissive to his father and still he preached, well say the submissive part about women and let them preach as well... I mean those who use this prove that being submissive doesn't affect preaching.

neo-x wrote:

RickD » Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:56 am

neo-x wrote:
The question is not about being submissive rick, in that sense, should we all be submissive to each other as some scriptures point out, but then does it mean we are not equal? It is what the spirit of God allows us to do or not. Banning someone from preaching should be done on spiritual merit. Not their physical characteristics which has nothing to do with the spirit of God and the work of Christ.

Neo, the point I'm making, is that Jesus was submissive to the Father's will, and those that believe women shouldn't be in authority over men, say that's because the woman should be submissive to the man in spiritual matters. It's not a matter of "equality", but order.

I understand that Rick but what they fail to realize is that Jesus also said "I and the father are one." Hell, if I am to use this, I'd say, Jesus was submissive to his father and still he preached, well say the submissive part about women and let them preach as well... I mean those who use this prove that being submissive doesn't affect preaching.

Sure, neo. I think "Pastoring" is probably the issue, more than preaching. In churches, A Pastor is in a position of authority. And a woman having spiritual authority over man, is where I think the issue is. A preacher isn't necessarily a church leader, although it can be in some churches.

But how do you get off saying that men are inherently more "spiritually authoritative" than women?

Ivellious wrote:But how do you get off saying that men are inherently more "spiritually authoritative" than women?

I don't think anyone is saying that, Ivellious. I just think their argument is one of order and authority. At least that's the impression I get from reading from those who don't believe women should be Pastors over men. I haven't seen any disagreement about women being pastors of other women, so that leads me to think that a woman's ability and knowledge is not what they're arguing against. Here's one side of the argument:http://carm.org/should-women-be-pastors-and-elders

CallMeDave wrote:

RickD wrote:

Byblos wrote:

CallMeDave wrote:

RickD wrote:I agree with others here that say women do have a role in churches. Most churches do have a kitchen, don't they?

Now, THAT is a sexist statement . Many women in our churches are good at teaching roles beyond the kitchen .

You're right, they can teach cooking classes.

Yes Dave you are right. That was a sexist statement, and I apologize. As far as teaching roles beyond the kitchen, as you mentioned, how about laundry classes?

Two sexist comments dont make a right . If youre married, run what you said here past your wife tonight and report back in the morning

Dave, I'll tell my wife to make me a sammich, and she and I will discuss(I'll tell her what she can think about) the issue. Then I'll get back to you.

I'm going to be blunt. The more I read about this, the more I really see the Bible as preaching sexism at the highest level. Phrase it however you want, paint it in whatever light you desire...The Bible apparently condones the total restriction of women in the church under the guise of "order" and "authority", as if somehow accepting the fact that women aren't lesser creatures than men will throw the whole balance of the universe out of place.

The article you posted sums it up quite nicely. It seems wrong to say that women shouldn't be allowed to hold power or authority or be relied upon or trusted with higher responsibilities, but the Bible says women are to be below all men so equality isn't biblical. Can someone explain to me how a woman having authority over a man is wrong?

Ivellious, using your argument, in my house, we preach ageism. My wife and I have authority over my son. Does that mean he's a "lesser creature" than we adults?

Yes, your son is a lesser creature, so to speak. His emotional and mental developments aren't at the level of yours, nor does he have the experiences of you and your wife. You are his caregiver and are charged with raising him because you have the ability to better him as a person. Your authority is justified and expected, and his submission comes from his lack of things that he needs from you to grow and succeed.

In the case of men over women, you can't use that argument unless you presume superiority of men over women in those respects. The comparison isn't valid because there is no way you can justify giving your son more command based on what I said above, and unless you can wholeheartedly say that men have innate superiority in the mental, emotional, and spiritual senses, the comparison is apples and oranges. Same goes for having authority over the mentally ill or the extremely old, when you can similarly justify authority by citing necessary emotional, mental, or physical aid.

I guess the argument would go something like: God established both the Church, and the family. God therefore, established the positions of authority in each. That's why it's apples to apples. I really haven't come to the conclusion that women can't be in authority over men, in the church. I'm just trying to look at this issue honestly. It's an issue that I really have never given more than a cursory thought about before.