Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:

Crochet: That passage would be indicating that the 'Good Lord' has not called women to be preaching from a pulpit.

So you're questioning why there were no chick disciples or apostles? It's an interesting question. What REALLY bugs me about this and similar issues is people want to view it through the modern lens of the gender wars and equality issues.

I actually totally agree Philip. If it boiled down to nothing more than a spiritual question I doubt there would be assertions like "The women should let men just be Men' as posted by Crochet. I will say again that I don't believe it's done intentionally but it is a mindset that I believe is deeply imbedded in a gender war mentality. I'm quite aware that my opinions may came across as modern day equality banta.
Imagine that, someone highlighting the upmost importance of equality under the eyes of God. My passion for such belief does not stand alone in this discussion regarding women as Priests. Any one that remotely knows me on this forum would know that my ideal of equality as I see it flows much further than a pis*ing contest between the sexes. This is a deep seeded ideal that I bring to my discussions across the board.
As I have stated if a fellow believer is so blessed to shine God's light into the lives of others in any regard but for the sake of this argument in a preaching role then far be it for us to question such a blessing.
I honestly think that anyone that has an issue with this, under the weight of evidence and by that I mean the wonderful work that women are doing in leadership roles and bringing countless to God's saving Grace, I question if this attitude has anything to do with real spirituality but rather an attitude entirely centered around a 'law' based mentality.
Let's face , that's what it is.
It is a works based/law mentality. It is placing perceived or not legality over God's will.
He will do as He sees fit, and it seems that regardless of the many religious beliefs that date back millennia that place women under a veil of silence and submissiveness that I may add we recoil at if it doesn't fit our own standards of suppression like the burka but the reality is it seems we all have our 'burka'. It may not be a piece of clothing but often it is, God regardless annoints and blesses.

The issue is that somehow a women being in a leadership role is perceived as 'taking away from the men'.
'Can't women just let men be Men'
Perhaps it's not a war of the genders, a competition where one is superior to the other. Where men weren't emasculated by women in position of power. It's not taking away from but rather adding to the fabric of Gods kingdom.

melanie wrote:

Philip wrote:

Crochet: That passage would be indicating that the 'Good Lord' has not called women to be preaching from a pulpit.

So you're questioning why there were no chick disciples or apostles? It's an interesting question. What REALLY bugs me about this and similar issues is people want to view it through the modern lens of the gender wars and equality issues.

I actually totally agree Philip. If it boiled down to nothing more than a spiritual question I doubt there would be assertions like "The women should let men just be Men' as posted by Crochet. I will say again that I don't believe it's done intentionally but it is a mindset that I believe is deeply imbedded in a gender war mentality. I'm quite aware that my opinions may came across as modern day equality banta.
Imagine that, someone highlighting the upmost importance of equality under the eyes of God. My passion for such belief does not stand alone in this discussion regarding women as Priests. Any one that remotely knows me on this forum would know that my ideal of equality as I see it flows much further than a pis*ing contest between the sexes. This is a deep seeded ideal that I bring to my discussions across the board.
As I have stated if a fellow believer is so blessed to shine God's light into the lives of others in any regard but for the sake of this argument in a preaching role then far be it for us to question such a blessing.
I honestly think that anyone that has an issue with this, under the weight of evidence and by that I mean the wonderful work that women are doing in leadership roles and bringing countless to God's saving Grace, I question if this attitude has anything to do with real spirituality but rather an attitude entirely centered around a 'law' based mentality.
Let's face , that's what it is.
It is a works based/law mentality. It is placing perceived or not legality over God's will.
He will do as He sees fit, and it seems that regardless of the many religious beliefs that date back millennia that place women under a veil of silence and submissiveness that I may add we recoil at if it doesn't fit our own standards of suppression like the burka but the reality is it seems we all have our 'burka'. It may not be a piece of clothing but often it is, God regardless annoints and blesses.

The issue is that somehow a women being in a leadership role is perceived as 'taking away from the men'.
'Can't women just let men be Men'
Perhaps it's not a war of the genders, a competition where one is superior to the other. Where men weren't emasculated by women in position of power. It's not taking away from but rather adding to the fabric of Gods kingdom.

I've simply shared what God's Word tells us -- regarding who is to be preaching from a pulpit to a mixed adult group -- 1 Tim.3:1- 7. One of the 1st qualifications is that of being a Husband / a Man Not a woman.

When a woman feels called to teach -- let it be a group of women. Women's Bible studies / Women's retreats.

I was Also referring to in the secular world -- just because a woman Can do a man's job, doesn't mean it's doing herself any favors by doing it. Meaning a road crew, construction jobs, etc.

If a woman wants to be a CEO of a company - - providing she doesn't do it by 'sleeping' to get there -- Go for it. There are Lots of women in leadership roles in the business world. The world, these days, can be very cut-throat - but, if it suits a woman and she can be a Christian witness in the process, Fine. Go for it. And, please, don't interpret my comment to mean that , generally speaking, a woman would Probably have to sleep her way up the ladder in order to get to the top where she Wants to be. Some women Have been known To do that. Some woman Can be Very cut-throat. And I suspect that the men don't really appreciate them As women very much. I've also known husband/ wife company teams who do quite well together.

But, in a church setting, it's a whole different story. And it Should be -- it's God's / Christ's church. We are to follow Him. His guidelines.

I think this post speaks for itself.
Sometimes the best argument is silence in the face of blatant sexism.
I think I hear crickets......
But because sadly such assertions have been left unanswered and I get why....
Far be it for me to let a load of BS slide.
Now I actually get more clearly your position Crochet, where previously I stated you did so unintentionally I retract such statements to mean you are intentionally a bit of a chauvinistic oink.
I appreciate your effort in reiterating that women may sleep their way to the top but don't take that the wrong way, or misinterpret my words but women do do that, or have been known to do that. No misogonist pun intended.
Whilst I get it may be emasculating to comprehend, women who are so inclined to work their way up the corporate ladder have a much harder and therefore a more applauded scale to climb to reach such heights. It takes leadership, intelligence, dillegience and smarts far beyound what a man entails when the backlash is exactly what you have quite flippantly remarked upon with such comments as 'don't take this the wrong way' but she probably slept her way to the top means to me any women has had to be twice as committed, twice as smart and twice as capable to break through such pathetic ideals.
Yes, some women have had to make sacrifices for career success, and I suspect some men haven't appreciated them. I also suspect they don't care.
I also appreciate that husband/wife company teams have done quite well, and I also attest that men alone have done very well for themselves as have women.
Thankfully being good at business, being successful and profitable has nothing to do with genitalia.
The bullcrap that a women had to sleep her way to the top is nothing more than emasculated banta from ego beaten men who question their own success.
This entire post when it boils down to a more spiritual aspect is so ridden with personal baggage in regards to a biblical perspective that it's embarrassing.
I'm all for hot topics and debates.
What I'm not down for is such blatant BS.
When a bloke starts questioning a womens success to 'open leg syndrome' then actually thinks he's being clever enough to counterfeit such remarks be way of 'don't take it the wrong way', then finishes with 'but some women do that' is just pretty transparent.
Not too mention that if men are so easily manipulated by sexual prowlness so much so to let women into leadership roles of ministry, business and politics based upon nothing more than titts and as* then which sex is more the fool???
I don't think either but rather exemplary people shine in every aspect of success. Hard work and commitment is the defining aspect of success. Interestingly this is the same in a secular environment as in spiritual terms.
I'm not trying for a second to define salvation but rather spiritual leadership, those that commit and trust will be rewarded. Not cause their special but because as in the secular world when you are commited to the task you reap the benefits. With trust and faith comes peace.
Contentment,
And rewards,
Not in they we define but in hope.
The way of the world is so embedded in our programming that I digress once again in softening to Crochet position albeit momentarily.
I get it.
But simultaneously every part of me is in stark opposition. Not because I'm a women but because I'm a believer.
My faith is my compass.
As a free thinking Christian, passionate about faith I say meh with the gender wars and yea with bringing together the eclectic Body of Christ.
Individually we are strong, together as one, we are an army!!

It's Still Got The Joel You Need
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAR98j2DNjI

Acts 2:16-21

Melanie -- I DID make a comment that Some women have Probably slept their way up the corporate ladder. But you are blowing that Way out of proportion. Your comments are blasting me clear out of orbit -- unnecessary. Some -- in contrast to All -- Some could be translated into 2% of 100% -- some get 'friendly' with their employer in order to keep a needed job. And Now you're going to blast me for undermining all the Good employers.

You are grouping the secular with the church. The secular world can do what they want. It's the Church that is guided by God's guidelines. No matter How it's read -- the husband of one wife Means a Man behind a pulpit teaching / preaching to a mixed group of adults. In A Church.

'Blatant sexism' -- come on now. A gender war because God gives mankind guidelines?! Then how about who can marry whom. Same-sex people? That's gender related. What does God's Word teach and what does Society tell us is okay. And, why bother To get married -- just live together to avoid a possible future divorce.

Leadership roles in ministry, politics, and business are two separate areas. Ministry being the Church , and, yes, I'm repeating myself.

Melanie wrote:
As a free thinking Christian, passionate about faith I say meh with the gender wars and yea with bringing together the eclectic Body of Christ.
Individually we are strong, together as one, we are an army!!

The army is no place for women!

Women should stay home, patiently awaiting the return of the leaders of the household.

Women should stay in the relative safety of their kitchens.

Now make me some Christmas cookies!

Kurieuo wrote:Can't vote. I see nothing wrong either way.

What is more important is correct teaching seasoned in truth but grace and love.

The natural order of marriage is man, woman and then children. Woman is no less than the man, nor are children less than the woman or man, and yet for a correctly functioning family unit each serve a unique role. Sin in people often makes some see the issue as one of "power" for what they perceive as a more important and powerful roles, mistaking such for just a natural order of function. The foundation for all such is love, and for us, that is rooted in God Himself.

• Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Overlay such this family model upon the church, which is really comprised of our extended spiritual family in Christ, and I'd expect a similar order of sorts. Whether it should be strictly codified and followed, well one's spiritual growth and maturity ought to be considered since women can have loads where many men fail or vice-versa.

Again correct teaching is crucial, and such should be done out of love a rooted in Christ, not to claim power, abuse, control or take advantage of others as so often happens.

I think this is pretty much what I believe.

I think there most diffinitly is an order, man being the head of the household. But a good husband will listen to his wife and love her as much as Christ loves the church.

If kerry and I disagree on a decision that needs to be made, he gets the final say. But that is ideally after he has fully heard my side and has taken into great consideration what I had to say.

Nessa wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Can't vote. I see nothing wrong either way.

What is more important is correct teaching seasoned in truth but grace and love.

The natural order of marriage is man, woman and then children. Woman is no less than the man, nor are children less than the woman or man, and yet for a correctly functioning family unit each serve a unique role. Sin in people often makes some see the issue as one of "power" for what they perceive as a more important and powerful roles, mistaking such for just a natural order of function. The foundation for all such is love, and for us, that is rooted in God Himself.

• Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Overlay such this family model upon the church, which is really comprised of our extended spiritual family in Christ, and I'd expect a similar order of sorts. Whether it should be strictly codified and followed, well one's spiritual growth and maturity ought to be considered since women can have loads where many men fail or vice-versa.

Again correct teaching is crucial, and such should be done out of love a rooted in Christ, not to claim power, abuse, control or take advantage of others as so often happens.

I think this is pretty much what I believe.

I think there most diffinitly is an order, man being the head of the household. But a good husband will listen to his wife and love her as much as Christ loves the church.

If kerry and I disagree on a decision that needs to be made, he gets the final say. But that is ideally after he has fully heard my side and has taken into great consideration what I had to say.

And if he doesn't consider, it's the wife's place to make him consider! At the same time, a few pats on the back don't go astray, sadly something husbands rarely receive. But then, it works the other way around too, sometimes (likely more often) husbands neglect their wives too.

This song in particular really speaks to me about the role of a Christian husband/father and how he is to lead his family.

Nessa wrote:This song in particular really speaks to me about the role of a Christian husband/father and how he is to lead his family.

Yes, husbands have a lot of responsibility in "leading", if they step up to the plate. Sadly, there isn't much support, and they must see through and fight against what "society says" is the way, which isn't necessarily healthy as I see matters. It is also a lot of pressure, to those who realise and often stamps failure here and there.

Marriage IS to be a picture of the church. The Head, being God/ Jesus Christ. Both husband and wife are to have direct connection with God 1st and then together. And man and wife become One physically / spiritually/ emotionally. It's meant to be the closest possible relationship between a man and a woman and God blesses them with children as He wishes to.

The head of the Church is to be the husband of one wife -- Again -- the leader being a man. Again --God's guidelines.

Are there simply not that many men who feel led to be Pastors? Or do they 'ignore' that 'calling' because they are concerned that they can't support a family on the salary of a small / medium sized church? Are there that many churches that Want Bible taught to them? Has the secular world so infiltrated our Bible colleges / seminaries that they don't really teach Bible doctrine any more?

So -- what ends up being more important -- God's guidelines or what Society says is 'okay'.

When couples get married -- isn't it because they Want to be together -- no one is Making them get married. They Want to be together and make decisions together. Hopefully they've been taking time to know each to learn how to work through conflicts successfully.

The Church body is different. The pastor is to be teaching Bible to the flock of people that are coming to him. The Main concern would be for the salvation of each individual. And Then to grow in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ -- become more and more like Him / Jesus Christ. Well -- actually -- That Should be the goal of a husband, too. His leading his wife and children spiritually.

The issue as to the truth of whether Scripture qualifies women in the church to be pastors, elders or overseers of ALL in a particular church, including men, SHOULD only be directed by Scripture. If one doesn't believe or care what Scripture has to say about this issue, well, then the following will seem irrelevant for you. If one wants to only interpret Scripture per their modern sensibilities and culture, the gender competitions, well, that's not how Scripture reveals how we are to understand or interpret such things. We change, God does not - nor have His directives - least not unless He has added to or subsequently changed His original directives for us. So, this issue is NOT a matter of the first century culture being different, nor does it have anything to do with women not being as intelligent, properly spiritually gifted, talented enough, or anything at all to do with having the necessary abilities - with many women excelling and and exceeding the abilities of most men.

In 1 Timothy, we read what Paul's what the purposes of his instructions are for: “I write these things to you, hoping to come to you shortly, but if I am delayed, so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God...” (1 Tim 3:15). Paul instructs Timothy how to build up existing churches and how to establish new ones, and concerning various procedures of people and the leadership, as churches begin and continue to meet. And Paul separately addresses the roles of men, women, elders, deacons, widows, masters, and slaves, and does so with each as a distinct group.

The following goes through most of the key passages concerning the issues of men and women's role in the Church:

In the Spring of about 56 AD, Paul writes, “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.” (1 Cor 14:34)

However, the following fall, Paul commends Phoebe the servant (diakonos), and greets Priscilla who had participated in teaching an evangelist named Apollos, and greets Junia whom he says is "of-note among the apostles" (Romans 16). While we don't know the exact background of the reference, we need to be careful about reading some commanded conduct from it, because about five years after Paul's first teaching about women remaining silent in church, he further wrote, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.  I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.  And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.  But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety” (1 Tim 2:11-14).

The 1 Corinthians 14 passage includes Paul's guiding instructions for church gatherings. The Romans 16 passage is a greeting to certain people in the Church. The 1 Timothy 2 passage is also directed at rightful conduct in the church gatherings. In fact, the entire letter is pretty much a manual on HOW to do church. The explanation Paul gives for his instructions about women is based upon God's sequential design of His Creation order of Adam and Even, and the nature of the Fall. So, Paul's instructions are NOT based upon the culture of the time – because he traces the reasons for them back to the creations of Adam & Eve. In 1 Timothy 3, we find a specific list of qualifications for the office of church bishop, elder and overseer – all of which reference ONLY a male for such roles. Additionally, if he had meant both males AND females for these roles, he easily could have said so - but did not.

And then we have the reference of Phoebe: Rom 16:1-2 "I commend to you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea, that you may receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and assist her in whatever business she has need of you; for indeed she has been a helper of many and of myself also." The word Paul uses for "servant" is diakonon – the very same word used in other NT passages for "deacon." However, though Phoebe may be a deacon – perhaps teaching women, as opposed to men - there is NO Scripturally mandated authority assigned to deacons – whether male or female. They are not to be leaders of authority. So, the Phoebe reference does nothing to buttress the idea of women in church leadership roles over men. Also, none of this references the roles women are to play in greater society (in business or whatever), as to this issue - it ONLY applies to the various roles of women in the churches.

And then there is Priscilla. Romans 16:3-5: "Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in THEIR house." Priscilla (or Prisca) is the wife of Aquila, both of whom are close friends of Paul, with whom he once lived and worked (as tentmakers) for over a year. They are never referred to individually in Scripture, always only as a couple. This was a significant early Gospel team, as they are mentioned six times in the Bible (Acts and Romans).

Acts 18:26 "(Apollos) began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately." Here is a private conversation between three friends at home, like we would have at the kitchen table. Remember that both 1 Cor 14 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 are directed at speaking “in the church.” The conversations between Aquila/Priscilla and Apollos do not take place "in the house of God" or during a meeting of the Church. So it does not violate the principle that a woman may not teach or have authority over a man. So, per this issue, Priscilla is a non-issue.

And then there is Junia. Romans 16:7: "Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me…" This does not definitively state Junia is NUMBERED as being amongst FELLOW apostles, nor that Andronicus is a even a woman. Very likely, this reference means that these two were very well KNOWN to the apostles – and not that they actually WERE apostles. Not to mention, while God certainly chose apostles, as for the church and it's operation, we see NO list of qualifications for some supposed OFFICE of apostle, as there are for bishop, elder, etc.

To be clear, there is no teaching preventing women from teaching other women, with maybe as much as 60 % of the church being female, and many young boys, that would still mean women free to teach perhaps 70% of the church. Not to mention a very large percentage of the men would not have qualified for bishop, elder or overseer. Only a small percentage of men with very specific qualifications would been allowed into these offices.

Yes, we are all equal in Christ. But our ROLES in Christ are unique. However one might argue this issue, the above would appear to be some of the key passages. And it is interesting that the NT not only gives a mandate of qualifications for certain offices, but that there are NO references or examples of women in these key roles - well, that is very curious, if they were meant to be included. And, again, it's not merely that men can and women can't preach or teach men, but only a very select, small percentage of even the men would have qualified - meaning perhaps as many as 85-90% of the men likewise wouldn't have met the specific criteria for certain roles.

Very well presented.

Nessa wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Can't vote. I see nothing wrong either way.

What is more important is correct teaching seasoned in truth but grace and love.

The natural order of marriage is man, woman and then children. Woman is no less than the man, nor are children less than the woman or man, and yet for a correctly functioning family unit each serve a unique role. Sin in people often makes some see the issue as one of "power" for what they perceive as a more important and powerful roles, mistaking such for just a natural order of function. The foundation for all such is love, and for us, that is rooted in God Himself.

• Love is patient, love is kind and is not jealous; love does not brag and is not arrogant, 5 does not act unbecomingly; it does not seek its own, is not provoked, does not take into account a wrong suffered, 6 does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Overlay such this family model upon the church, which is really comprised of our extended spiritual family in Christ, and I'd expect a similar order of sorts. Whether it should be strictly codified and followed, well one's spiritual growth and maturity ought to be considered since women can have loads where many men fail or vice-versa.

Again correct teaching is crucial, and such should be done out of love a rooted in Christ, not to claim power, abuse, control or take advantage of others as so often happens.

I think this is pretty much what I believe.

I think there most diffinitly is an order, man being the head of the household. But a good husband will listen to his wife and love her as much as Christ loves the church.

If kerry and I disagree on a decision that needs to be made, he gets the final say. But that is ideally after he has fully heard my side and has taken into great consideration what I had to say.

I don't think a marriage needs to work under a leadership, I think it's a partnership. No matter how it's spun if you are left with one 'in charge' then it is a power structure.
A dominant and submissive.
By very nature of the hierarchy.
I totally respect your views Nessa and my post is not in any way trying to attack your position but it's really important to me that women, Christian women know that to be in a marriage where both parties are believers then it is not only okay but in my opinion spiritually sound to have a husband and wife working equally together in their married life and decision making.
My husband is not the head of the household and by extension me and he does not have the final decision.
Ironically we disagree on everything except spiritual matters. If he's up then I'm down, if he says right then I say left, from the minor to the major: we are chalk and cheese.
We often butt heads so much so it's comical.
But we respect each other and we acknowledge our strengths and weaknesses. In matters of finance I am much more savy, but he is more grounded in emotional situations. He takes the lead in certain situations and I in others. The reminder we work it out together. Granted that sometimes its heated and we argue but it's a unfied debacle of wills and opinion.
Sometimes I bend or he bends to make peace but at no time is there a leadership role. It is in every way a partnership and it works for us.
Different strokes for different folks I guess, marriage is a hard road to navigate at the best of times. People need to work out what works for them without religious baggage.