• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Baptist views on feminism

Discussion in 'Baptists' started by leothelioness, Mar 8, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Brad2009

    Brad2009 Newbie

    990
    +149
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    That's not the implication in any way. How could you possibly get that implication, except just to be contrarian? You say, this word means leader. I say, no this word means servant. You say, pfff, leader can == servent, therefore it still means leader. Its ridiculous.

    The statement that Phoebe represents a female leader is not substantiated by the verse as you claim. Neither is it proved in the negative, but the verse you cite does not show Paul's endorsement of female leadership. Its the inference that you draw which does not logically follow.

    Looks like the Byzantines had found a very scriptural use for women as servants of the church. But now find the part about how women were commonly the head authorities in that same church...
     
  2. becareful

    becareful Newbie

    22
    +1
    Christian
    Married
    Absolutely... that's addressed in the very next sentence. You're right and I do understand why women needed to organize and it is very important as our secular society would dictate.

    Let's consider for a moment why men were abusive to women... because in general there are as many men as there are women. I believe women, as the weaker gender, were more vulnerable to the men who had weak or no faith in God. Has this abuse stopped because of feminism? Because the abuse hasn't stopped... has feminism taken on a new personality and moved from trying to help women... to just outright hatred of men? It could be argued... I'm really saying that feminism was started on a slippery slop and it is sliding...

    I would like to know if you think All men were abusing women... or were a few women abused... then a few women decided organize to save All the women from All the men.

    Don't get me wrong... I am in no way trying to defend any abuse whatsoever. Abuse is wrong no matter what.

    Let me approach it in a different way... if All men and women were acting according to God's plan, do you think there would be a need for feminism?
    Do you think that all women want to be feminists?

    So feminism is a secular movement. In that I mean... keep it secular. Godly men and Godly women don't need feminism in the home. However, when it is necessary that women to be in the secular world... I don't think there is anything wrong with taking advantage of any secular opportunities that have been provided by feminism.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2009
  3. becareful

    becareful Newbie

    22
    +1
    Christian
    Married
    I agree with Brad2009 on the deaconness discussion.

    Ringo... you might want to read closely what your Wikipedia says. I would think being a full fledged deaconness... would have ministries for all the church... not just women ministries. This is the only conclusion you can draw from the Wikipedia reference.

    Could it be that Paul recognized her as a deaconness... because she was involved in women ministries only? To me this would not conflict with the qualifications of deacons... and still does NOT justify women in church leadership.


    God Bless!
    becareful
     
  4. Ringo84

    Ringo84 Separation of Church and State expert

    +4,379
    United States
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Others
    A leader isn't a servant? We don't say that a President is a servant of the people, since he (theoretically, at least) represents them and serves at their pleasure? All servants are not leaders, but all leaders are servants - of whomever it is that they serve.
    Ringo
     
  5. Ringo84

    Ringo84 Separation of Church and State expert

    +4,379
    United States
    Baptist
    Single
    US-Others
    I think a quote from Toy Story is applicable here:
    "You are a sad, strange little man, and you have my pity. Farewell."
    Ringo
     
  6. Brad2009

    Brad2009 Newbie

    990
    +149
    Christian
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    Statement 1, made circa 100 AD:

    Object A is a ball.

    A discussion between two parties regarding statement 1:

    party 1 - Since we know that Object A is a ball, it is reasonable to infer that it has a leather cover and a diameter of 2.9 inches.

    party 2 - Actually, you're talking about a baseball which wasn't even invented at the time of statement 1. All that we can reasonably infer from the statement is that Object A has a spherical shape, not its composition or specific diameter.

    party 1 - Aren't all baseballs also balls?

    party 2 - It exceeds the information presented in statement 1 to say definitively that object A is a baseball.

    party 1 - Baseballs aren't balls? Have you gone mad?

    party 2 -
    [​IMG]
     
  7. becareful

    becareful Newbie

    22
    +1
    Christian
    Married
    ringo... I don't need your pity.

    I'll pray for you.

    God Bless!
    becareful
     
  8. becareful

    becareful Newbie

    22
    +1
    Christian
    Married
    Brad,

    I love the pic...

    God Bless!
    becareful
     
  9. TimRout

    TimRout Biblicist

    +216
    Baptist
    Married
    Are you arguing against me, or the Apostle Paul? After all, it was Paul who, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, chose to draw the parallel between Christ's relationship to His bride, and a husband's relationship to his wife [Eph. 5:32].
    How does this unfounded assertion subvert my careful and detailed exegesis of Ephesians 5? You have yet to prove that marriage is indeed an equal (egalitarian) partnership. You are quick to dismiss my argument, but one must be careful to distinguish between dismissal and refutation. Aside from the fact that you find my position distasteful, can you explain from the text of Ephesians 5 why my position is objectively wrong?
     
  10. TimRout

    TimRout Biblicist

    +216
    Baptist
    Married
    Actually, no. I do not believe Paul --- or God, through Paul --- was endorsing slavery. Philemon makes this fairly clear. But I do think that God inspired Paul to select the relationship of masters and slaves, among others, to characterize the content of Ephesians 5:21. If Paul were writing in a contemporary western context, he might have chosen employers and employees, instead of masters and slaves. Nevertheless, the argument still stands. Regarding the three relationships described in Ephesians 5:21 - 6:9, each reflects one party who leads, and another party who follows.

    Passages like Galatians 3:28 reflect an equality of value, insofar as Christ shed just as much blood to pay for the sins of women, as He did for men. Men and women, though equal in value, are commanded by God to play different yet wonderfully complementary roles.
     
  11. sablehalloway

    sablehalloway New Member

    52
    +1
    Baptist
    i donno
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...