I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics1 min ago
Women In Church
44 Answers
Saint Paul said that women should not be allowed to teach other Christians, as because they are more spiritual, they are more easily led astray from the true path. It's all about integrity.
Men and women are equal in the sight of God, but each have different roles to play.
Therefore, women clergy are not biblical.
I agree with this.
What do you think?
Men and women are equal in the sight of God, but each have different roles to play.
Therefore, women clergy are not biblical.
I agree with this.
What do you think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Oakleaf51. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jojojojan I don't understand what you are saying?
What I am saying is that men and women are equal in the sight of god but have different roles to play.
Why would women want to have a teaching role anyway? The Bible makes it clear that is not on. They believe the bible don't they, these women priests and deacons.
To be honest I think they are misguided and there is a lot of political correcttness that drives them to take the job on. Why change what has always worked?
What I am saying is that men and women are equal in the sight of god but have different roles to play.
Why would women want to have a teaching role anyway? The Bible makes it clear that is not on. They believe the bible don't they, these women priests and deacons.
To be honest I think they are misguided and there is a lot of political correcttness that drives them to take the job on. Why change what has always worked?
Oakleaf, Im not the one mixing organised religion with the simple faith inspired by Jesus. You're the one doing that. I am talking about basic Christianity - which is something you do not practice, since you adhere to the teachings of one other than Jesus. You insist that St Paul acquired his knowledge of Jesus through special revelation, but we only have Paul's word for that - and if that is the case, then why did St Paul complicate the simple message - or do you believe that Jesus revealed more to Paul than he'd revealed to the followers who knew him and heard him speak? Rules might be rules - but whether or not you follow them depends entirely upon who set the rules down - and in this case, it wasn't Jesus.
Mr McFroog .... The thing is simple. The Bible is the the book of instructions for Christians. Thats the way it is and you cant argue with that. So when it says something, a Christian has to folllow it and modern ears is just another way of saying that you want to change the rules. Do you see what i mean like. After all our socity is based on rules that go back years and years and if we upset them, then we are crumbling away at the very foundations, and Christianity is the very foundation of our socity.
Just because the likes of Naomi start nit picking and saying that Saint Paul was not in touch with Jesus, and he was as he had divine revelation, doesnt alter things. The Bible is true, and modern man trys to change things if they get in the way and thats not right.
Just because the likes of Naomi start nit picking and saying that Saint Paul was not in touch with Jesus, and he was as he had divine revelation, doesnt alter things. The Bible is true, and modern man trys to change things if they get in the way and thats not right.
Christianity has never stopped evolving since it began. That's why we have so many denominations and no longer drwown witches and burn heretics.
I think the introduction of women to the clergy has reinvigorated my faith and given it back it's radicalism rather than fall into the false comforts of conservatism.
Christianity is a radical faith with a radical message of hope, love, tolerance and understanding for ALL. That's why so many people are terrified of it, women have a role to play in the church and a positive one at that.
Brionon and Mcfroog are atheists (although Brionon does'nt like to be called that) so their answers are as mischeivous as your post.
I think the introduction of women to the clergy has reinvigorated my faith and given it back it's radicalism rather than fall into the false comforts of conservatism.
Christianity is a radical faith with a radical message of hope, love, tolerance and understanding for ALL. That's why so many people are terrified of it, women have a role to play in the church and a positive one at that.
Brionon and Mcfroog are atheists (although Brionon does'nt like to be called that) so their answers are as mischeivous as your post.
Equal in their 'standing', in that men and women are born, live and die. The human life cycle from one person to the next is essentially the same. (Obviously people do different things with their lives i.e have different jobs.)
In society for example in the fifties the world was a different more rigid place in that there were not as many opportunities. Why 50 years on is the world a different place?(or is it?) Technological advances? The effects of the global village? to look at the Victorian/Edwardian eras (which in real terms are not far in the past) why has society evolved so much since then? And why do women hold more power in public roles? (or again do they? is this confined to public roles only? what of private roles?) Even in terms of pay women receive less money than men across the board on the whole. Is society pretty much the same as in the 1950's apart from that there is apparently much more opportunity/freedom/ pc/ human rights etc but does this opportunity bring about competition between men/ women and therefore maintain the 'status quo' that has always been? is this 'status quo' essential for evolution? for society to 'flow' coherantly? e.g the construction/conditioning of gender roles for social advantage? i.e so that humanity does not die out? (survival of the fittest?) in other words to continue the human life cycle?
In society for example in the fifties the world was a different more rigid place in that there were not as many opportunities. Why 50 years on is the world a different place?(or is it?) Technological advances? The effects of the global village? to look at the Victorian/Edwardian eras (which in real terms are not far in the past) why has society evolved so much since then? And why do women hold more power in public roles? (or again do they? is this confined to public roles only? what of private roles?) Even in terms of pay women receive less money than men across the board on the whole. Is society pretty much the same as in the 1950's apart from that there is apparently much more opportunity/freedom/ pc/ human rights etc but does this opportunity bring about competition between men/ women and therefore maintain the 'status quo' that has always been? is this 'status quo' essential for evolution? for society to 'flow' coherantly? e.g the construction/conditioning of gender roles for social advantage? i.e so that humanity does not die out? (survival of the fittest?) in other words to continue the human life cycle?
For his time Paul was following the general view in life that women were treated only slightly better than slaves and were to be treated at the whim of men. Whilst modern society can declare that Paul, like many men of the time and for several centuries after, was probably a misogynist (although being phylogynyst on the sly was also quite prevalent) I think it is rather erroneous to suggest that what society has achieved today can be swept aside by one misrepresented principle. It is only really in the last 100 years or so that we have stopped palming our daughters and sisters off to the �highest bidder� for marriage, so let�s not go backwards.
In any event, I think you are incorrect at making that great leap of faith. In the early Hellenistic Jewish-Christian church, through the baptism creed women became equal with men by dissolving their traditional relations with men as wives. Thereby they were also freed to teach and preach in local assemblies and as traveling evangelists.
Paul accepted this activity of women when he joined the church that used this baptismal creed. He continued to assume that women could speak in Christian worship assemblies, lead local churches, and travel as evangelists, as is evident from his references in his epistles to women engaging in these roles. I think his main concern was to do with the vow of celibacy, which is a completely separate issue.
Having read this post and your one on African drums, I think your opinions do seem to create a little imbroglio for yourself Oakleaf. But you have a right to those opinions of course.
In any event, I think you are incorrect at making that great leap of faith. In the early Hellenistic Jewish-Christian church, through the baptism creed women became equal with men by dissolving their traditional relations with men as wives. Thereby they were also freed to teach and preach in local assemblies and as traveling evangelists.
Paul accepted this activity of women when he joined the church that used this baptismal creed. He continued to assume that women could speak in Christian worship assemblies, lead local churches, and travel as evangelists, as is evident from his references in his epistles to women engaging in these roles. I think his main concern was to do with the vow of celibacy, which is a completely separate issue.
Having read this post and your one on African drums, I think your opinions do seem to create a little imbroglio for yourself Oakleaf. But you have a right to those opinions of course.
Oakleaf, you say you can't argue with the bible, but that's not true. Even CHRISTIANS argue between themselves about the bible and what it means. No wonder you're all so confused.
And what's all this '"the likes of Naomi"? I've offered a valid argument - but you call it nitpicking and the only explanation you offer is that St Paul had a divine revelation. If you believe that, you'll believe anything - and it seems, you do.
Brionon, who knows? None of us were there, and we can't say it's been recorded by a reliable source.
And what's all this '"the likes of Naomi"? I've offered a valid argument - but you call it nitpicking and the only explanation you offer is that St Paul had a divine revelation. If you believe that, you'll believe anything - and it seems, you do.
Brionon, who knows? None of us were there, and we can't say it's been recorded by a reliable source.
Its so sad to hear somebody come out with this rubbish. STUDY properly, with regards to all the Gospels and Nag Hammadi texts, learn about the Pistis Sophia, learn about how Jesus had female disciples etc. It does my head in when people like you spout this rubbish, you would have fitted in great when they were choosing which Gospels to put in the Bible!! And to use St. Paul as your source is laughable you are clearly out of your depth with the Theologians on this site. Sorry im not normally this rude but you totally deserve it.
Is that what this ? A gang of theologions? I thought we were just discussing the Bible, and what it says.
If it says something, then everyone says "Oh no it doesn't" like a pantomime. If thats called being clever then count me out . Where is the room for a simple faith that follows what is read? And for years this way of thinking didn't let us down, but all the tinkering does no good at all.
If it says something, then everyone says "Oh no it doesn't" like a pantomime. If thats called being clever then count me out . Where is the room for a simple faith that follows what is read? And for years this way of thinking didn't let us down, but all the tinkering does no good at all.
The central point, that females have different roles than men in the eyes of God, has not been adequately addressed. Gospel Halls function quite well by adhering to this rule, and their members are some of the most solid reliable citizens you could ever wish to meet, and in no way obstruct the ladies from achieving their full potential in the world.
They are certainly not impoverished for only having male teachers.
They are certainly not impoverished for only having male teachers.
Lack of detriment is not really an argument for refusing to accept change. Like many things in life, inclusively embracing both genders can and does provide a wonderful life / spiritual balance. If a woman decides that her �full potential� in this world is through ecumenical servitude, then so be it.
Well brionon how mischievous of you! You can either accept and agree that Christians have and should evolve with the times whilst observing their faith, or come forth and say that they have been living in an unchanging and unenlightened era. Also, can you decide which argument you now rely on for your ritualistic causticity of the formation and existence of Christianity? Is it that Jesus did exist and set out the path for Christianity which Christians now follow in an amended form, or that he didn�t exist and that the collators of the gospels set out the original idea which was based on lies and fabrications for political means, and now Christians should realise that and observe the original ideology?
