Women Pastors part 2

HenryM

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2016
616
226
ZXC
✟32,716.00
Country
Bangladesh
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You didn't write this?
"God gives us answer to this question in many ways, and one of the loudest is this:

Man penetrates. Woman receives. And that's how new life, and through it new love, gets created."

Really??? Or are you saying that has nothing to do with the sex act??? REALLY???

It's typical of occultists to try to "clean up" their sexual worldview when presenting it to others by pointing out ways in which it can be viewed metaphorically or allegorically. You may or may not be an occultist (they often hide that they are), but the view you expressed is perfectly in line with occultism.

I found your statement, quite frankly, disgusting.

?

All the triple ??? and big cases just make your conclusion more absurd, as if it's needed, like you didn't actually read what I have written.

I didn't talk about sex, you have. I have talked about an act of conception. You know, the act of creating new life into our world, the act of creating a being that will become new bearer of God's love.

And I certainly didn't rooted anything in that act. I just used that important act (an act of concepting new life) as an example that shows clear distinction between men and women. And my conclusion is that God wouldn't make that clear distinction just on random, but that it means something.

Also, when I wrote about male's "penetrative nature", I further explained completely non physical ways that demonstrate it, or at least point to it. So there too, I have not even once talked about sex.

But you have. And that's on you.

Now, maybe you'd want to continue with it, or you can step on a break and actually read what I have wrote.
 
Upvote 0

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Yes, and not only she, but all of us. As I said, that's why we are sinners. It's hard to do it. But, here's a question. Why worry if someone will destroy your body, or take your stuff, when the only thing that's important is your soul, which is getting prepared to live with God? All destruction we can experience on Earth fades away in significance, while Jesus' commandment to give the enemy what it wants to take, and more, becomes completely understandable.
The first is not a hypothetical situation in this case, so you advocate that my wife gives in, submits to the wishes of an adulterer? Really!!?? How interesting.
Will you or anyone else come and pick up the pieces of my family, my children and the family and children of her friend, with you frankly abhorrent religious ideas, when he's finished having his fun? Or will join with the braying masses in condemning them both for their terrible act against God?
You took that fully out of context and attributed incomplete sentence to me. :) My sentence starts with "Imagine a man saying:" as an example in reply to previous post.
..and yet your imagining is very biblical:
She replied, "That's true, Lord, but even dogs are allowed to eat the scraps that fall beneath their masters' table." (Matthew 15)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Philip_B
Upvote 0

HenryM

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2016
616
226
ZXC
✟32,716.00
Country
Bangladesh
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I have a big question as to why you have used the word 'her' in introducing these quotations. I would be much happier if you had used the word 'us', or even 'us all'. For the integrity of this debate I think we should avoid sexism as much as we can, and the use of the word 'her' where the word 'us' would have a higher and more open level of veracity leaves you open to being more sexist than perhaps you would intend.

I agree completely. Thank you for giving me reason to correct. I used "her" as reply to previous post where there was a talk about a woman. It's us, of course.

Maybe even it's not to say it's us. Jesus' commandments are for me first, and others second, and maybe everybody could look at it that way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Philip_B
Upvote 0

HenryM

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2016
616
226
ZXC
✟32,716.00
Country
Bangladesh
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The first is not a hypothetical situation in this case, so you advocate that my wife gives in, submits to the wishes of an adulterer?

You wrote specifics just right now, how can I know in advance?

Now that I know, your wife shouldn't give in to adulterer because she would be violating Jesus' commandments. Hopefully, His commandments are written in her heart, not just in her book.

Being a victim does not violate commandments, in fact it enchances them. Being participating party to a wrong doing does violate commandments.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
I didn't talk about sex, you have. I have talked about an act of conception. You know, the act of creating new life into our world, the act of creating a being that will become new bearer of God's love.

Last time I checked, sex kind of plays an important role in creating a new human life.

And I certainly didn't rooted anything in that act. I just used that important act (an act of concepting new life) as an example that shows clear distinction between men and women. And my conclusion is that God wouldn't make that clear distinction just on random, but that it means something.

Yes, it means that it takes two to create a new human life, and that concept of men and women as equals extends to other areas of life.

Also, when I wrote about male's "penetrative nature", I further explained completely non physical ways that demonstrate it, or at least point to it. So there too, I have not even once talked about sex.

Nice try, but no, the act if penetration is a sexual act.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArmenianJohn
Upvote 0

HenryM

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2016
616
226
ZXC
✟32,716.00
Country
Bangladesh
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I notice that you didn't address my point about an alternative view of biology; the fusion of ovum and sperm as a creative act. Why is that?

Sorry for that. I have read what you said, maybe I missed that you wanted a reply. I still think that man's role is more proactive. How can it not be? But after man's proactive role, woman takes over. It is joint creative act, but it's complex act, not 50%-50%. I don't take any credit from woman for her part (which is larger), and feel there's no need to take man's credit.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

HenryM

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2016
616
226
ZXC
✟32,716.00
Country
Bangladesh
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Nice try, but no, the act if penetration is a sexual act.

This is like a joke: "Is this real life, or am I dreaming?"

Penetration, from dictionary:

1. The action or process of making a way through or into something, like "the software has attained a high degree of market penetration".

2. The perceptive understanding of complex matter, like "the survey shows subtlety and penetration".

You do understand that you can talk about penetration in the context of conception? Even sperm penetrates ovary. What is this, a twilight zone?
 
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,384
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,348.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Also, when I wrote about male's "penetrative nature", I further explained completely non physical ways that demonstrate it, or at least point to it. So there too, I have not even once talked about sex.
OK. Just so perhaps we can all settle down. I understand you are in Eastern Europe, and I am going to allow for some specific cultural understanding and differences. For us in the English Speaking West, you cannot say "Man penetrates. Woman receives" without it being understood generally by readers as an argument from natural law, and specifically referencing sexual intercourse. That is why your post has generated so much angst. I, and no doubt others, hovered over the report button, but held back. I can, just, accept that you didn't talk about sex, but I can tell you because of the words you used, we all (or maybe nearly all) did hear you talk about sex quite loudly.

Could I ask you to reflect upon what you were trying to convey, and find another way to express it, in order that what you say might be what we also hear.

Pax
 
Upvote 0

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,384
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,348.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
What is this, a twilight zone?
This is a place where men and women are respected as a creation in the image and after the likeness of God, and where with dignity and respect we find ways to affirm and support that dignity, and so give praise to God our Father.
 
Upvote 0

Archivist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 5, 2004
17,332
6,425
Morgantown, West Virginia, USA
✟571,140.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
This is like a joke: "Is this real life, or am I dreaming?"

Penetration, from dictionary:

1. The action or process of making a way through or into something, like "the software has attained a high degree of market penetration".

2. The perceptive understanding of complex matter, like "the survey shows subtlety and penetration".

You do understand that you can talk about penetration in the context of conception? Even sperm penetrates ovary. What is this, a twilight zone?
No, you said "man penetrates, woman receives." You weren't talking about about software (at least not the computer variety) or markets or surveys.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Anguspure

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ
Supporter
Jun 28, 2011
3,865
1,769
New Zealand
✟125,935.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
You wrote specifics just right now, how can I know in advance?

Now that I know, your wife shouldn't give in to adulterer because she would be violating Jesus' commandments. Hopefully, His commandments are written in her heart, not just in her book.

Being a victim does not violate commandments, in fact it enchances them. Being participating party to a wrong doing does violate commandments.
I apologize for the sharp blow. But that's the thing we often forget in these discussions; this is the real world we're discussing here not some hypothetical religious ideology. Obviously the Spirit of Christ is not going to tell my wife to submit to that man and so we see that not only is retaliation a different thing from resistance. It is Christ Jesus that we submit to, and the rest as followers of Him.

I like this quote from the movie Full of Grace were Mary is talking to Peter:
"You ask yourself if you have what it takes to lead the way....The answer is No, you do not....but you are not leading are you?....You are following....He has already gone before you, the path has already been set...follow it. Seek him in all things and failure will be impossible."

So submission is something that we, all Christians, do as an example of Christ and because of Christ.

If a woman submits to her man as his wife it would be because he is showing an example of submission that she can follow. If he does not then her submission should be to Christ, for we cannot serve 2 masters.

For this discussion, real women are in real positions of leadership, given by circumstance, given by God, given simply because the reality is that they are the best available leadership at the time. They are ordained by God (if not by man) and their ministries are a blessing to the body.

For men to then denigrate them from afar, especially given that none of them are entirely consistent in their following of the Spirit, must seem a very low blow for these Godly women.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Paidiske
Upvote 0

HenryM

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2016
616
226
ZXC
✟32,716.00
Country
Bangladesh
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Could I ask you to reflect upon what you were trying to convey, and find another way to express it, in order that what you say might be what we also hear.

Thank you for your post. Since I have written some replies after my initial post, what I have wanted to say is maybe already clearer (for people who have read this thread).

To summarise:

I have used "to penetrate" and "to receive" as one distinctive difference in nature between men and women. Yes, english is not my first language, but I still think that both words apply, and cannot find better substitute. Anyway, the difference in nature I wrote about is both physical and psychological. Physical in act of conception, or in act of sex itself (although I didn't talked about that, or in other words, I have talked about conception and that act does involve sex as part of it, but it is not about sex alone), among other things. Psychological in terms of men being more go-getting proactive goal oriented beings, while women being more nurturing, laid back.

I specifically used act of conception as an example of that difference, because that's important moment. Each of us was brought into the Earth that way. And my view is that such important moment must have clues (and explanations, when later in life something goes wrong) as to what God speaks to us.

My view is that God has created man to be an influencer and leader, while he didn't create woman for that role. It doesn't mean there are no exceptions, I am talking about general rule here. In many cases where I have seen or read about relationship where roles were reversed, it ended badly. I have rarely seen that relationship between man and woman can fully work and be fully loving if woman is prime influencer and leader. Again, I am sure there are examples for that, but I believe they are rare exceptions. And no, it can't be equal. It would mean that it's 50%-50%, and that's almost never possible to realize. At best it's 51%-49%. So, someone has to tip the scale if not for just a little bit. And that someone is leader in that relationship.

Finally, if relationship between man and woman needs a leader (and in my opinion God tells us in many way that man is a leader), it follows that it's natural for man to lead in Church also.

(Hope that clears things additionaly, although each topic just raises next questions or arguments. I am willing to participate, it's just the problem of time, so if I don't, that's the reason.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AnticipateHisComing

Newbie
Supporter
Dec 21, 2013
2,787
574
✟103,332.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God gives us answer to this question in many ways, and one of the loudest is this:

Man penetrates. Woman receives. And that's how new life, and through it new love, gets created.

[Edit, since some misread above: New love is baby, a new being brought into our world capable of receiving God's love and giving it back to God and others.]

This is not "mere biology". He or she who dismisses as unimportant such clear distinction involved in creation of new life is, in my opinion, way off in understanding of our mutually compatible roles. God doesn't create "mere biology". Everything is perfect and with reason in His creation.
Since this thread is currently obsessed with your words, I will add to them with the most important part you left out. That being spiritual life, our soul.

No one in this thread has argued that physically men and women are different. I have argued that the physical differences indicate a functional difference in life. Obviously females predominately nurture the young offspring and is proof of functional/psychological differences between men and women.

Some argue that despite physical and functional differences, in spiritual relationships there is no difference between men and women. They quote one verse for support.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Now learn from 1 Corinthians 12:12-31 that one does not mean equal. It further teaches a multiplicity of roles in the Church. We are one with Christ in the spirit, does that mean we are equal to him? Certainly NOT. So just because men and women are one in the spirit, does not imply that we have equal roles spiritually.

Now the verses that explicitly address the OP have been posted enough even if they have not been adequately refuted, but I would like to point out a nuance of 1 Corinthians 11:7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

What does it mean that man is in the image of God? It certainly is not anything related to our flesh and blood bodies, since God had no flesh and blood at creation. God must be talking about something spiritual. I look to Genesis 1 to see the difference between animals and men, how we are created in God's image is not our flesh and blood but our having souls.

Now the hard question, how are men and women different in a spiritual sense? We both have souls that can be filled with Satan or the Holy Spirit. So how can we be different? I see a parallel between women bearing flesh and men bearing the spiritual life.

To start with, I have recently learned to appreciate the difference in scripture between conceived and beget. Of course you have to look in the KJV for such language, not my normal study Bible. When scripture uses conceive, it always is addressing something that happens in females, human or animal. When scripture uses the word beget it is always talking about what a man does, except in one case where God the Father begets his Son.

So why do we need two different words to describe the beginning of life? The obvious answer is that there are two different kinds of life. Both animals and humans have flesh and blood and the creation of flesh and blood starts with conception between a male and a female.

Now what the antiabortion Christians hold dear is that it is not just biological life that starts at conception, but in humans a soul also has beginning. To emphasize our uniqueness with animals the KJV uses beget to describe when a man creates offspring. The subtlety that is lost is that both soul and flesh have beginning, and the greater is the soul for it is what separates us from the animals. Now the important thing to note is that texts with beget refer only to an action of a man. Every text with conceive tells of what happened to a female, animal or woman.

The best proof of this is that when the Holy Spirit conceived in Mary, it created only flesh and blood life and not a new soul as Jesus' soul did not begin at conception. This is the reason why there had to be a virgin birth of Jesus. This is the only way for Jesus to be both God and man. God in the Spirit, man in his flesh. The alternative of virgin birth would just be a Spirit possessed man, just like all previous prophets.

So if women bear flesh and are nurturers of it, the parallel is that men bear our souls and are the nurtures of it.

This reasoning may sound new to many, but if you doubt it, answer me how men and women are different spiritually such that men are in the image of God and women are in the image of men. What I propose here fits in line with 1 Corinthians 11:7 for the glory of God/man is spiritual, the glory/beauty of women is the flesh. Men's calling is to nourish the spirit, women are naturally nourishers of the body.

Is it chauvinistic to say women are more beautiful than men? Have I just found scriptural basis for why men so much "appreciate" female beauty?
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: Anguspure
Upvote 0

HenryM

Well-Known Member
Dec 21, 2016
616
226
ZXC
✟32,716.00
Country
Bangladesh
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Since this thread is currently obsessed with your words, I will add to them with the most important part you left out. That being spiritual life, our soul.

No one in this thread has argued that physically men and women are different. I have argued that the physical differences indicate a functional difference in life. Obviously females predominately nurture the young offspring and is proof of functional/psychological differences between men and women.

Some argue that despite physical and functional differences, in spiritual relationships there is no difference between men and women. They quote one verse for support.

Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Now learn from 1 Corinthians 12:12-31 that one does not mean equal. It further teaches a multiplicity of roles in the Church. We are one with Christ in the spirit, does that mean we are equal to him? Certainly NOT. So just because men and women are one in the spirit, does not imply that we have equal roles spiritually.

Now the verses that explicitly address the OP have been posted enough even if they have not been adequately refuted, but I would like to point out a nuance of 1 Corinthians 11:7 A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man.

What does it mean that man is in the image of God? It certainly is not anything related to our flesh and blood bodies, since God had no flesh and blood at creation. God must be talking about something spiritual. I look to Genesis 1 to see the difference between animals and men, how we are created in God's image is not our flesh and blood but our having souls.

Now the hard question, how are men and women different in a spiritual sense? We both have souls that can be filled with Satan or the Holy Spirit. So how can we be different? I see a parallel between women bearing flesh and men bearing the spiritual life.

To start with, I have recently learned to appreciate the difference in scripture between conceived and beget. Of course you have to look in the KJV for such language, not my normal study Bible. When scripture uses conceive, it always is addressing something that happens in females, human or animal. When scripture uses the word beget it is always talking about what a man does, except in one case where God the Father begets his Son.

So why do we need two different words to describe the beginning of life? The obvious answer is that there are two different kinds of life. Both animals and humans have flesh and blood and the creation of flesh and blood starts with conception between a male and a female.

Now what the antiabortion Christians hold dear is that it is not just biological life that starts at conception, but in humans a soul also has beginning. To emphasize our uniqueness with animals the KJV uses beget to describe when a man creates offspring. The subtlety that is lost is that both soul and flesh have beginning, and the greater is the soul for it is what separates us from the animals. Now the important thing to note is that texts with beget refer only to an action of a man. Every text with conceive tells of what happened to a female, animal or woman.

The best proof of this is that when the Holy Spirit conceived in Mary, it created only flesh and blood life and not a new soul as Jesus' soul did not begin at conception. This is the reason why there had to be a virgin birth of Jesus. This is the only way for Jesus to be both God and man. God in the Spirit, man in his flesh. The alternative of virgin birth would just be a Spirit possessed man, just like all previous prophets.

So if women bear flesh and are nurturers of it, the parallel is that men bear our souls and are the nurtures of it.

This reasoning may sound new to many, but if you doubt it, answer me how men and women are different spiritually such that men are in the image of God and women are in the image of men. What I propose here fits in line with 1 Corinthians 11:7 for the glory of God/man is spiritual, the glory/beauty of women is the flesh. Men's calling is to nourish the spirit, women are naturally nourishers of the body.

Is it chauvinistic to say women are more beautiful than men? Have I just found scriptural basis for why men so much "appreciate" female beauty?

Great explanation. I have to thought it through, but on first read it makes complete sense. Kind of an eureka. There really has to be difference in spiritual fabric between men and women, because there are loud and clear differences in physical word. We are obviously not the same but compatible. We fit. It's a huge difference.
 
Upvote 0

ADisciple

Always Learning
Supporter
Sep 7, 2013
28
22
North Carolina
✟67,019.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It means what it says. This verse is a reference to the literal effect of salvation being accomplished through child-bearing (remember God's promise to Eve in Genesis 3:15?). The followup with contingencies of behaviour is to indicate the kind of evidences of a saved woman's life. As we have seen, child-bearing was God's intention for woman in his grand and enduring purpose of advancing His Kingdom. Child-bearing is one of the most noble roles a woman can fulfill, and is an honour to her as a distinct gift.

I'm only on page 5 of this lengthy, but enlightening thread. But I needed to ask your opinion on something (and of anyone else who would like to chime in) ...

If childbearing is held in such high esteem in God's eye ... then what of women like myself who physically can not have children? (And my husband and I are not in a financial position to foster/adopt either). Do I lose a chance at salvation because I can not bear children? I thought only believing on Jesus and his death, burial, and resurrection (faith) allowed for my salvation?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, as I have agreed with many of your posts in this thread. I'm just trying to understand your understanding of this topic and how this affects us gals like me who can't bear kids. Thanks!
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Philip_B

Bread is Blessed & Broken Wine is Blessed & Poured
Supporter
Jul 12, 2016
5,384
5,501
72
Swansea, NSW, Australia
Visit site
✟602,348.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
We are one with Christ in the spirit, does that mean we are equal to him?
I urge great caution in using this line of reasoning. We are not all the same but we are all of great worth to God our Father as was spelled out for us on Calvary. I would go so far as to say that I believe that we are all equal in the sight of God.
 
Upvote 0

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,130
19,010
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,719.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
This reasoning may sound new to many, but if you doubt it, answer me how men and women are different spiritually such that men are in the image of God and women are in the image of men.

I don't believe there is any spiritual difference between men and women at all. And it's chauvinistic to say women are more beautiful than men, if the flip side of that coin is that men are more spiritually excellent, which I think you were implying.
 
Upvote 0

Thir7ySev3n

Psalm 139
Sep 13, 2009
672
417
32
✟58,397.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I'm only on page 5 of this lengthy, but enlightening thread. But I needed to ask your opinion on something (and of anyone else who would like to chime in) ...

If childbearing is held in such high esteem in God's eye ... then what of women like myself who physically can not have children? (And my husband and I are not in a financial position to foster/adopt either). Do I lose a chance at salvation because I can not bear children? I thought only believing on Jesus and his death, burial, and resurrection (faith) allowed for my salvation?

I'm not trying to be confrontational, as I have agreed with many of your posts in this thread. I'm just trying to understand your understanding of this topic and how this affects us gals like me who can't bear kids. Thanks!

Not a problem; respectful questions are always welcome. The answer is that God's valuing something does not preclude Him allowing it's absence or opposite in certain situations according to His Providence, in which He accounts for the positive and negative consequences entailed in any course of individual and collective lives. For example, God knows what would happen in my individual life and the endless string of lives that are affected (through lives connected to mine, connected to theirs, connected to those connected to theirs, etc.) if He were to permit me some pleasure or deny me some suffering. I have dealt extensively with this topic of divine providence in many threads on this forum, so if you want to read my elaborate explanation of this subject, click here.

To be succinct here (so you can reference that if necessary), God upholds the uttermost value of things such as life, justice, mercy, grace, goodness, faithfulness, etc., yet we will find a plethora of occassions where we can witness the allowance of God for some denial of any of these things, even for prolonged periods of time, whether they be of the fallen natural order or of fallen moral beings. It does not follow, therefore, that God does not value these things for which Christ passionately sacrificed of Himself to restore. It is simply that, in the grand scheme of world history, the world in which we live must have some presently inexplicable suffering and absence of goods for an overriding purpose.

Additionally, God sometimes denied pregnancy for the purposes of punishment (2 Samuel 6:23), other times to demonstrate His power and ability to fulfill promises (Genesis 18:14, Luke 1:36), and often for reasons unbenounced to those who were without child.

However, God explicitly chose child-bearing as the catalyst to salvation (Genesis 3:15, Genesis 22:18, Genesis 26:4), for Christ was to be borne of a woman as a human man. This does not imply (nor am I sure why you inferred) that God only saves women who bear children; rather, God saved all of humanity by bringing Christ into the world through the mechanism of child-bearing. Not to mention it is children that become the following generation of Christians, as the propogation of the human race, effectuated through child-bearing, ensures there is a Christian family to endure through the generations.
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: ADisciple
Upvote 0

Jacob Deng

Active Member
Dec 21, 2016
59
31
27
Melbourne
✟20,062.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
If women Pastors are only allowed to teach other women and children should they ask grown men to leave ? Why do men follow women Pastors anyway? Should the men be blamed for allowing a woman to teach them scripture and usurp male authority as church leaders? If this thread doesn't go in this forum could the mods please move it?
Who said they were only allowed to teach other women and children? what is this about?... they have just as much right to teach as men.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sheep4Christ
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

98cwitr

Lord forgive me
Apr 20, 2006
20,020
3,473
Raleigh, NC
✟449,894.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Keeping silent doesn't mean not seeking to anyone in a gathering of believers. It has to do with issues of doctrine and practice. The context makes that clear, I would have thought.

"seeking to anyone?" Not sure what you mean here.
 
Upvote 0