Displeasing God

[cvanwey]

In accordance with Holy Scripture, God seems to disapprove of women having authority over men. Not quite sure in what specific context God is speaking about here? (i.e.) Leading in church, and/or as head of household, and/or in employment situations, and/or other? But regardless, I must now ask...

1. If I disagree here, am I truly wrong? And if so, is it merely because God says so? Or, can we appeal to any reason(s)/logic/evidence?

2. Does this mean the very existence of someone's role in church, like Joyce Meyers for instance, displeases God?

Thank you in advance for your answer(s).

 

[Sabertooth]

If I disagree here, am I truly wrong?

Not on this point. Born-Again people do not even agree about these issues, while remaining Born-Again. They are not central to Salvation (even if one turns out to be incorrect in the end).

For this matter, there are consequences for being incorrect, but none of them are eternal.

 

[cvanwey]

Not on this point. Born-Again people do not even agree about these issues, while remaining Born-Again. They are not central to Salvation (even if one turns out to be incorrect in the end).

For this matter, there are consequences for being incorrect, but none of them are eternal.

I do not feel this addresses my question. You spotlighted me solely asking:

"If I disagree here, am I truly wrong?"

I'm not asking if believing women can lead over men will keep you from salvation. I'm asking if women leading men displeases God? And if so, is it merely because He says so, or other?

 

[Sabertooth]

I'm asking if women leading men displeases God?

We do not know unanimously, nor in every context.

If I disagree here, am I truly wrong?

Here is how I heard your question,
"If I disagree here [with a standard that really isn't a settled standard],
am I truly wrong (according to a standard that remains unsettled)...?"

Were you trying to ask a different question?

The only things that the bulk of Christianity agrees to is the Nicene Creed & Original Sin. Everything else is in flux.

 

[cvanwey]

Here is how I heard your question,
"If I disagree here [with a standard that really isn't a settled standard],
am I truly wrong (according to a standard that remains unsettled)...?"

Were you trying to ask a different question?

Thank you for your clarification. Please allow me to elaborate.

I'm not sure of what specific category(s) God is referring to..? But, in at least one category, albeit the church, the home, the work place, the military, other, God is indeed telling His readers that women are not to have authority over men. Which-is-to-say, then means God is apparently okay with the men leading women in these same category(s). Otherwise, He would have instead not singled out the ladies as such...

Thus, I ask you anew...

If I disagree, with the command that women are not to lead men in such said category(s), am I wrong? This part is almost rhetorical, as the answer seems to be --- "yes, I am wrong." -- According to the Bible.

So I guess the question I would ask next might be... Why does women leading men, in such designated category(s), displease God?

 

[Sabertooth]

Some have posited that Paul was referring to a discipleship relationship;
that men should disciple men &
women should disciple women (for propriety's sake).

I can agree with that, but the matter is far from settled.

Also, if you are worried about "pleasing God,"
"[Without] faith it is impossible to please Him,
for he who comes to God must believe that He is,
and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Hebrews 11:6 NKJV

 

[cvanwey]

Some have posited that Paul was referring to a discipleship relationship;
that men should disciple men &
women should disciple women (for propriety's sake).

I can agree with that, but the matter is far from settled.

Scratching my head on this response...?

" I desire therefore that the men pray in every place, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and disputing. 9 In like manner, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefastness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; 10 but (which becometh women professing godliness) through good works. 11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. 12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression: 15 but she shall be saved through her child-bearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety."

The passages above, in bold, looks just as clear as the many Verses Christians like to preach aloud, as their one-liners of axiomatic truth. If the woman is instructed to remain quiet and not teach, nor to have dominion over men, then how could women even teach other women?

Further, I would assume the man can lead women.

Seems pretty clear as to the woman's role. Be quiet, bear children, have faith, and let the man lead.

Thus, I ask... Do woman leaders displease God?

 

[Sabertooth]

The passages above, in bold, looks just as clear as the many Verses Christians like to preach aloud, as their one-liners of axiomatic truth. If the woman is instructed to remain quiet and not teach, nor to have dominion over men, then how could women even teach other women?

Seems pretty clear as to the woman's role. Be quiet, bear children, have faith, and let the man lead.

That is the hyper-patriarchal view, but not every Christian subscribes to it (because of what the Bible says elsewhere on related matters).

 

[cvanwey]

That is the hyper-patriarchal view, but not every Christian subscribes to it (because of what the Bible says elsewhere on related matters).

I have to ask... Is it an unsettled view (for some) because it seems to go against such reader's own moral compass, or, is there really an unclarity in it's presented message?

Secondly, if the Bible speaks about women differently, in other areas, then you MUST ignore one, to favor the other, right? As I demonstrated, the given passages looks just as axiomatic as can be...(i.e.):

Men can be teachers. Women cannot. Women are to bear children, be quiet, not teach, wear certain clothing, and have faith.

So I take it you are not going to answer the fundamental question, as you are pleading confusion here??? And if you are truly confused here, what does this say about God's Word?

 

[Par5]

That is the hyper-patriarchal view, but not every Christian subscribes to it (because of what the Bible says elsewhere on related matters).

Are you saying that the bible is inconsistent in the things that it says?

 

[Sabertooth]

I have to ask... Is it an unsettled view (for some) because it seems to go against such reader's own moral compass, or, is there really an unclarity in it's presented message?

It is unsettled because there are other Scriptures that challenge a such a simplistic interpretation.

Secondly, if the Bible speaks about women differently, in other areas, then you MUST ignore one, to favor the other, right? As I demonstrated, the given passages looks just as axiomatic as can be...

Scripture DOES teach men-specific & women-specific verses, but you have an overly simple view on how they are to be implemented.

So I take it you are not going to answer the fundamental question, as you are pleading confusion here???

No, because your "fundamental question" makes false assumptions, sort of like
"Did you stop beating your wife, yet...?"

 

[Sabertooth]

Are you saying that the bible is inconsistent in the things that it says?

No, I am saying that our understanding of it isn't always clear [1 Corinthians 13:12].

 

[cvanwey]

It is unsettled because there are other Scriptures that challenge a such a simplistic interpretation.

Looks like the provided Verses are 'simplistic' because the author did not feel the need to elaborate any further. Why would he need to? Women are not to teach, nor have authority over men. Women are to remain quiet. Period. How hard is that? Women are to be saved by childbirth, having faith in God, remaining subservient to God and the leading men, and assuring they do not wear certain clothing. The points are concise, and to the point.

Does the simplicity mean it does not mean what it looks to clearly state? If so, prove it. Otherwise, accept the Verses for what they clearly say.

Scripture DOES teach men-specific & women-specific verses, but you have an overly simple view on how they are to be implemented.

Again, just because the Verses look to spell out these roles clearly and briefly, which might look to pose an uncomfortability for you, does not mean we need to read between the lines, do we? You need to demonstrate that there exists more to what is said, verses what looks to actually being said Can you do that? If you cannot, then I guess it might prove nonsensical to continue holding this opposing position, right?

No, because your "fundamental question" makes false assumptions, sort of like
"Did you stop beating your wife, yet...?"

Nice false analogy

You are stating you are confused, and hence, will not answer my follow up question. Correct?

Otherwise, here is the question again...

Why does women teaching men displease God? So either answer the question, or demonstrate precisely why you are confused. I see no third option here?

 

[Par5]

No, I am saying that our understanding of it isn't always clear [1 Corinthians 13:12].

I don't think you should find it too difficult to understand this passage from the bible. Deuteronomy 22:13-21. The woman is definitely not considered equal to the man.
If the husband dislikes and hates his wife and accuses her of not being a virgin and the accusation is found to be false, the husband will be fined and the wife will have to remain his wife even though he dislikes her.
If the husband's accusations are found to be true then the wife is to be stoned to death.
There is no question about whether the husband was a virgin on the wedding night. Only the woman could be found guilty of not being a virgin and consequently murdered.

 

[Sabertooth]

Since this is the Christian Apologetics sub-forum, are you apologizing to me or asking me to apologize to you?

I have no use for a skeptic's interpretation of the Bible. And if my experience with these passages does not help you in any way, I have nothing else to add.

 

[cvanwey]

Since this is the Christian Apologetics sub-forum, are you apologizing to me or asking me to apologize to you?

I this being addressed to me?

I have no use for a skeptic's interpretation of the Bible. And if my experience with these passages does not help you in any way, I have nothing else to add.

I find this response odd? I don't think there exists a 'my truth' vs 'your truth' vs 'another's truth', when asked about a specific passage. I trust we are all in search of THE truth.

 

[Aussie Pete]

In accordance with Holy Scripture, God seems to disapprove of women having authority over men. Not quite sure in what specific context God is speaking about here? (i.e.) Leading in church, and/or as head of household, and/or in employment situations, and/or other? But regardless, I must now ask...

1. If I disagree here, am I truly wrong? And if so, is it merely because God says so? Or, can we appeal to any reason(s)/logic/evidence?

2. Does this mean the very existence of someone's role in church, like Joyce Meyers for instance, displeases God?

Thank you in advance for your answer(s).

Joyce Meyer is the wrong example for you to pick on. She does not head up a church. She preaches and practices submission to her husband. She ministers mostly to women, although godly principles apply to every believer. No one is forced to listen to her. She was brought up in a way that would destroy most people. God has blessed her ministry tremendously. She gets better as she gets older, which is rare.

Most people decline in their later years. She can and does achieve more in a year than most Christians achieve in a lifetime. Christians do well to avoid criticising God's appointed and anointed. God takes a dim view of such criticism. As for Joyce, she ignores it completely. Good for her.

 

[Matt5]

In accordance with Holy Scripture, God seems to disapprove of women having authority over men. Not quite sure in what specific context God is speaking about here? (i.e.) Leading in church, and/or as head of household, and/or in employment situations, and/or other? But regardless, I must now ask...

1. If I disagree here, am I truly wrong? And if so, is it merely because God says so? Or, can we appeal to any reason(s)/logic/evidence?

2. Does this mean the very existence of someone's role in church, like Joyce Meyers for instance, displeases God?

Thank you in advance for your answer(s).

1. Equality displeases God. We are stones not bricks. The Tower of Babel was about the stones (everybody unequal) being transformed into bricks (everybody equal). Also, Jews were not allowed to build personal altars out of brick.

Logically, we can see that nobody is equal to anybody else but we must pretend. A society that must pretend is in trouble.

2. If the primary focus of women is not children then that society will cease to exist.

Logically, one can see that the West as we know it is dying because of reduced focus on children. Most women find most men undesirable. Hence, marriage and kids are going out the window. And immigration will transform the West into something else.

3. Measure the IQ of women. The mean equals men's, but the range or spread does not. Men's IQ is spread out more. More men at the top and bottom, and fewer in the middle. The best leaders will come from men. More criminals will come from men.

Note: This is one reason why the priorities of women will gradually rise to the top in democracies. Men are more divided.

4. Historically, societies led by women don't last very long.

5. Women as leaders in the church set a bad example that children are not the primary focus of women. This leads other women astray. This would displease God.

 

[cvanwey]

Joyce Meyer is the wrong example for you to pick on. She does not head up a church. She preaches and practices submission to her husband. She ministers mostly to women, although godly principles apply to every believer. No one is forced to listen to her. She was brought up in a way that would destroy most people. God has blessed her ministry tremendously. She gets better as she gets older, which is rare.

Please allow me to cut/paste my question in the OP:

2. Does this mean the very existence of someone's role in church, like Joyce Meyers for instance, displeases God?

As I provided to @Sabertooth , (1 Timothy 2:8-15). In such Verse, the woman is instructed not to teach, or to have authority over men. She is also instructed to remain quiet. So please do not quibble over minor and insignificant details.

Based upon the provided Verses, it more-so appears that God may be doing no more than to merely tolerate her direct insubordination.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Please allow me to cut/paste my question in the OP:

2. Does this mean the very existence of someone's role in church, like Joyce Meyers for instance, displeases God?

As I provided to @Sabertooth , (1 Timothy 2:8-15). In such Verse, the woman is instructed not to teach, or to have authority over men. She is also instructed to remain quiet. So please do not quibble over minor and insignificant details.

Based upon the provided Verses, it more-so appears that God may be doing no more than to merely tolerate her direct insubordination.

You should do some research into the role of women in the early church. You will be surprised. I'm not quibbling over details. You use a woman of God as an example of someone incurring God's displeasure. I'm saying that you are wrong. I don't subscribe to the view that success is necessarily proof that God is behind a ministry. But in Joyce Meyer's case, I believe that God has indeed blessed her.