Female Pastors & Bible Teachers

[Obzocky]

I, for sure, am finding it hot

 

[Rhamiel]

I'm familiar with the scientific understanding of men and women and there is no scientific reason for women to be categorically excluded from leadership positions. They are just as capable as men in that regard. However, despite this, you and others are asserting that women have some innate inferiority which precludes from from assuming the role of a leader. So far so explanation has been given which is based on another other than a blind acceptance of dogma. Categorically excluding women from leadership is sexism at its finest, there is no other way to describe it.

no one has said that women are inferior
I do not believe that women should be priests
does that mean they are inferior? no not at all
being a priest is not something that you "win" because you are faster or stronger or smarter or more holy, being a priest is a calling
you are right, there is no scientific reason for women to be excluded from the priesthood, if i said it was science it would be sexist

and you are equating being a church leader, in my church that would be priests and bishops, with being superior and being a follower as being inferior, this is a very archaic way of thinking
it devalues those people who are good followers

 

[ImperatorWall]

What I'm getting at is that the verse is not a statement of "I'm saying an elder must be male because it must be someone who has a wife." If you read the verse in that sense, then a single elder is every bit as unfit as a female elder - a position I doubt the RCC would hold to for very long

Rather, it's a statement against polygamy and unfaithfulness. It could easily be "the wife of one man" - the two are interchangeable for the message the text is attempting to imply.

And Timothy 3?

 

[KingCrimson250]

652.

It can mean the specific 12, but in this case Strong's indicates "apostles" means Christian teachers in general.

So it could be either the specific 12, or the 12 + Barnabas, Timothy, etc.

Wasn't your original post contending that the usage of ἀπόστολος in that passage referred to the 12? Not that there's any way of determining that linguistically, anyway

 

[ImperatorWall]

Wasn't your original post contending that the usage of ἀπόστολος in that passage referred to the 12? Not that there's any way of determining that linguistically, anyway

Yeah, the first source I checked said that was the case.

But Strong's does not agree, so I'm not confident about it being the specific 12.

Regardless, it is either the 12, or the 12+ a few key men. None of which are Junia.

 

[ImperatorWall]

Wasn't your original post contending that the usage of ἀπόστολος in that passage referred to the 12? Not that there's any way of determining that linguistically, anyway

Actually, the further I delve into it, there is not even a consensus that Junia was a woman!

I would be hesitant to hinge your arguments on so shaky a foundation.

 

[KingCrimson250]

And Timothy 3?

I gave a brief response to Timothy 3 a couple pages back.

Yeah, the first source I checked said that was the case.

But Strong's does not agree, so I'm not confident about it being the specific 12.

Regardless, it is either the 12, or the 12+ a few key men. None of which are Junia.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does not your assumption that the 12+ does not include Junia rely upon the belief that Junia is not an apostle? As such, isn't your reasoning a bit circular? As I understand it, you are essentially saying "We know that the Bible does not consider Junia to be an apostle because the Bible does not consider Junia to be an apostle"

 

[acropolis]

no one has said that women are inferior
I do not believe that women should be priests
does that mean they are inferior? no not at all
being a priest is not something that you "win" because you are faster or stronger or smarter or more holy, being a priest is a calling
you are right, there is no scientific reason for women to be excluded from the priesthood, if i said it was science it would be sexist

and you are equating being a church leader, in my church that would be priests and bishops, with being superior and being a follower as being inferior, this is a very archaic way of thinking
it devalues those people who are good followers

To say that some group of people is unfit to lead is to say that they are lacking some innate ability to lead, which is to say that they are in some way inferior to those who do have the ability to lead. You aren't fooling anyone but asserting otherwise. Either give a reasonable explanation for why women are unfit for leadership or simply admit that you subscribe to a sexist doctrine. You can't have it both ways.

 

[ImperatorWall]

I gave a brief response to Timothy 3 a couple pages back.

I'm referring to Timothy 3:1-7.

Read my latest post about Junia, the plot thickens!

 

[ImperatorWall]

To say that some group of people is unfit to lead is to say that they are lacking some innate ability to lead, which is to say that they are in some way inferior to those who do have the ability to lead. You aren't fooling anyone but asserting otherwise. Either give a reasonable explanation for why women are unfit for leadership or simply admit that you subscribe to a sexist doctrine. You can't have it both ways.

It has nothing to do with ability, nothing at all.

 

[acropolis]

It has nothing to do with ability, nothing at all.

Then it is entirely unreasonable to exclude women from leadership if they are, by your admission, completely able to do so. It is sexist to do so in that case, since it is the very definition of sexism to segregation people based on nothing more than gender when there is no other reason to do so.

 

[redblue22]

what would be interesting is to know exactly what a leader does that everyone else does not.

 

[ImperatorWall]

Then it is entirely unreasonable to exclude women from leadership if they are, by your admission, completely able to do so. It is sexist to do so in that case, since it is the very definition of sexism to segregation people based on nothing more than gender when there is no other reason to do so.

I don't. God does.

 

[acropolis]

I don't. God does.

Which gets back to my point that the dogma to which you subscribe is fundamentally sexist and unjust.

Have you ever taken a single moment to consider why something like excluding women from leadership, which is so obviously not based on anything physical, scientific, or reasonable, would be demanded? Have you ever thought critically about what you believe in any way? You certainly aren't providing any justification so I can only assume you haven't.

 

[ImperatorWall]

Which gets back to my point that the dogma to which you subscribe is fundamentally sexist and unjust.

Have you ever taken a single moment to consider why something like excluding women from leadership, which is so obviously not based on anything physical, scientific, or reasonable, would be demanded? Have you ever thought critically about what you believe in any way? You certainly aren't providing any justification so I can only assume you haven't.

Let me lay a few things on you so perhaps you will better understand my position.

1. Life is not fair.
2. Human rights don't exist. You only have as many rights as the people in power over you give you.

Getting clearer? There is no physical, scientific, or reasonable reason that women should be allowed to have positions of leadership in the church.

 

[acropolis]

Let me lay a few things on you so perhaps you will better understand my position.

1. Life is not fair.
2. Human rights don't exist. You only have as many rights as the people in power over you give you.

Getting clearer? There is no physical, scientific, or reasonable reason that women should be allowed to have positions of leadership in the church.

The opposite is true: there is no physical scientific, or reasonable reason that women shouldn't be given leadership positions. They excel at them routinely. It's only your own weakness and ignorance which prevents you from acknowledging that fact. If you had any leg to stand on in this regard you could easily point to it, but instead continue to merely mumble about god. It is trivial to point to examples of effective women leaders, here's a few: Queen Hatshepsut and Cleopatra of Egypt, Empress Wu Zetian of China, Isabella of Castile, Queen Elizabeth I of England, Catherine the Great of Russia, Maria Theresa of Austria, Hilary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Margaret Thatcher, and the list goes on and on. And yet you continue to assert that women are for whatever reason unfit for leadership without giving anything more than a verbal shrug.

edit: furthermore, the unfairness of life is something that should be fought rather than excused and protected.

 

[Rhamiel]

To say that some group of people is unfit to lead is to say that they are lacking some innate ability to lead, which is to say that they are in some way inferior to those who do have the ability to lead. You aren't fooling anyone but asserting otherwise. Either give a reasonable explanation for why women are unfit for leadership or simply admit that you subscribe to a sexist doctrine. You can't have it both ways.

Grace is not something earned, it is a free gift from God
to be called to be a priest is a grace
i never said that they lacked the ability to lead, the secular world shows many examples of wonderful women leaders

Let me lay a few things on you so perhaps you will better understand my position.

1. Life is not fair.
2. Human rights don't exist. You only have as many rights as the people in power over you give you.

Getting clearer? There is no physical, scientific, or reasonable reason that women should be allowed to have positions of leadership in the church.

um, you do not believe in human rights?

 

[leothelioness]

Human rights don't exist. You only have as many rights as the people in power over you give you.

This is scary. As a libertarian, I almost had a heart attack just reading that.

 

[Rhamiel]

This is scary. As a libertarian, I almost had a heart attack just reading that.

as a human I allmost had a heart attack just reading this

as thinking people we should believe in human rights
but as Christians we should definatly believe in human rights
people are made in the image of God, does not that in and of itself deserve some respect?

 

[crishmael]

This is scary. As a libertarian, I almost had a heart attack just reading that.

As someone who knows authoritarian views inevitably extend beyond controlling women I was not surprised.