Nero's Fiddle

Huh?

He called other women to very tough roles, including ones not sanctioned by culture. Mary became an unwed mother for a while there, and later the mother of a convicted and executed "Criminal". That was pretty hard on her, I imagine. In Jesus' day, two witnesses were required to establish anything. Women were not acceptable as witnesses in Jewish thinking, because they were thought to be unreliable. However, one of the two witnesses of Jesus' Messiahship at birth was a woman, Anna. That was certainly not the cultural norm. Moreover, many of Jesus' followers had undue hardship placed upon them, but that did not stop Him from doing what was right. How about the formerly blind man who was cast out of the synangogue (which created intense financial hardship for the needy) because Jesus healed him? Or what about Paul? Because of his history and status as apostle to the Gentiles (definitely not culturally acceptable) he underwent hardship greater than that faced by many other apostles.

According to the Bible, this would be sin on the part of the spouse who said that. If that spouse is a Christian, then this should not happen. "The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency." If the spouse is an unbeliever, I think this would probably constitute the unbeliever looking for a divorce, yes?

Not that it isn't interesting debating whether worthy is or is not a church... But I still haven't seen a single explanation as to why this is directly relevant to female pastorship. Twice now I've posted an explanation as to why it is not relevant in the first place, why worthy being a church (if it were) would not make the roles females have here unBiblical, and no one has said anything to indicate otherwise. I don't mean to nag by continuing to bring it up, but I believe it is an important point.

Hold everything! In discussing whether worthy can be called a church or not, the plain sense meaning of Scripture is being considered! Shouldn't someday bring in some strange cultural or liguistic gymnastic arrangement that makes passages say the opposite of what they say? (Please don't take this too seriously... it is just a joke. )

I think part of the reason why ungodly music and other forms of "worship" have been so able to make headway into our churches is because of the idea that anything we do with the claim that it is for God's glory is right. The fact is, there are things that are wrong regardless of whose name you are doing them in. Rock music has negative impacts on the emotions and bodies of human beings whether done for Satan with worldly words or propagated in the Christian community with "Christian" words. Aaron's sons died because they burned "strange incense". They did not burn it to an idol, but in the tabernacle of the Lord for His "worship". --------------------------- As an aside concerning the impact of music even on demonism: When Saul had an evil spirit, David played godly music on his harp and the spirit departed. --------------------------- When Moses descended from the mountain with Joshua, they heard the Israelites in their worship of the golden calf, in which the Bible says they "played". Joshua thought it was a war going on in the camp because of the tumultuous noise. But Moses, being acquainted with the worship of idols, informed him that it was not warfare but singing. Then, "as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing." I bring this up because it demonstrates that the type of music, etc, the Israelites used to worship their idol was NOT THE SAME as the type they used to worship God. In fact, speaking of the altars, groves, etc, used by the pagans the Israelites would destroy, God told them to demolish them, because, "Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God." Why then should we use rock 'n' roll, associated with so many terrible and worldly practices, to "worship" the Lord? Why do we want to be like the world from which the Lord has purchased us?

Thanks. Unless it was sarcasm. In which case, thanks anyway.

I'll answer that with a question: Does empathy negate responsibility?

As for Puragtory, limbo, etc, the Bible gives no indication that any such state exists. IMHO, based on Biblical references concerning the relationship between breath and life, I have no problem with feeding tubes but do not support keeping someone on a respirator for long periods of time. At what point a person is dead in God's eyes, I have no idea.

Okay, mabye no one noticed this, so I will post the point again. The only authority held at worthy is in the form of admins, mods, etc. These are NOT spiritual authorities, so are not really part of the discussion about woman Pastors in the first place. I re-submit my example. If your church had three janitors or three cooks for meals, and the "head" janitor or cook was a female and one of the others was a male, this would NOT violate Paul's directions! However, if your Pastor was a woman, it would directly violate them. There is a difference, and it is the same difference we have here at worthy. Disregarding admins, mods, etc, we are Christians coming together to discuss Christ on an even playing field, which several Scriptural examples show to be completely fine, and indeed right. All I see here is more gymnastics, finding loopholes to ignore the plain sense meaning of Scripture in order to meet the criteria of pre-formed opinion. If you truly want the Bible to say something, we have many example to show that it is possible to twist it to make it say what you desire. That does not change the actual meaning of Scripture, and in this case I believe the Scriptural principle is clear.

I will NOT hijack this topic, but, to quickly-and-one-time-only-on-this-thread reply: What God declares as moral or immoral, He does so based upon His character. His character can never alter or change, so, no. God cares for man (I realize you may not accept this, but you do not believe in His existence either, so it's a moot point ), and desires the best for him, not to harm him. Therefore, because of God's character, it is wrong for a human being to desire to inflict pain on another. Moreover, God's will for man includes time on this earth, time to accept Him as Savior, time to live the life He has planned for him. Therefore, murder runs directly contrary to the purpose God has for man, which is also predicated upon His character. Short answer: No, because it would run contrary to His character, which cannot happen. Sorry Nebula. I'm done. Finito. Exiting the the thread foreber and eber.

I'm not a former Jew, so I can only go by what I've read as far as Jewish traditions. Here is one short overview of this: http://www.raptureready.com/rap55.html

I don't mean to be harsh, PRC, but it seems as though you are saying that the plain sense reading of a passage is incorrect, but not providing any other sensible way to understand it. Rather than simply telling us that Paul is not equating being absent from the body and being present with the Lord, please tell us what you think this verse means and why, so that we can respond to you rather than simply stating and restating something with which you disagree. KJV: 8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

I actually posted an answer to this earlier in the topic. Basically, this board is a place for discussion among Christians of equal status, with none having a higher spiritual authority than another. The only authority difference you could claim would be "admins", "mods", etc. However, this is not the same concept as a spiritual authority like that of Pastor, which the Bible reserves for men. If the head janitor at your church building was a female, this would not violate the Biblical principle. If your Pastor was a female it would. It is the same concept here. I posted several Bible passages dealing with the fact that women are not prohibited in any way from talking about Christ with men, but that they most certainly are prohibited from being Pastors.

Exactly. We base our eternities on the fact that this Book was given to us by God, not besmirched in any way (until the translation, etc, phase) by the fact that He gave it to us through men. If we believe that there are errors in the Bible, we must accept the possibility that everything else, every truth, is tainted by human involvement in its formation. Moreover, I would submit that we have incredible evidence that the Bible could not have been generated by man's devices... it transcends what man is capable of. Therefore, we have every reason to believe it should not contain errors, because we see "the fingerprint of God" so clearly in it. And we know He cannot be in error. Is this an evolutionary insert or a commentary on ancient civilizations? Should we be insulted?

No problem . I believe what I do about music because I've studied the ways in which music affects us. The evidence is clear that there is simply no such thing as "neutral" music, regardless of what the words are. All music influences the emotions and the bodies of the people listening to it in a very real way. As Christians, we are exhorted to do everything to the glory of God. I believe that that includes choosing music that is in line with His purposes and character. Based on the troubling effects of rock music, I do not think it is the type of music Christians ought to listen to, even if it has Christian words attached. ---------------------- The reason I keep saying "performance dance" in order to avoid confusion. In the Bible, when the Ark of the Covenant was brought into the city, David was so full of joy that he danced as he followed it. This was not a rehearsed dance performed for others to see. It was his private joy at the presence of God expressed spontaneously. Note, he didn't take time out of the temple worship to say, "Today I'm going to do a little dance for you guys." In any case, it was a very different thing from anything we see today. ----------------------- We don't have a "worship team", but we do have "specials", during which a person or group of people will play instruments or sing. But, as I said, the songs either have words glorifying to God and edifying to the people, or the instrumental music is comprised of those songs, which are well known and thus will have recognizable words. ----------------------- You have never heard Christians arguing for the use of conservative music? Well, I suppose it is becoming less and less common. I believe the Bible teaches "seperation" from anything in this world - immodest clothing, inappropriate television, etc. - that is not in line with God's holiness, regardless of how much of society accepts it. I believe that includes forms of music that impact us in a way averse to God's purposes or present the image to the world that we desire to have what they have, when they should be the ones desiring what we have... Jesus Christ. "I hate the work of them that turn aside; it shall not cleave to me." (Psalm 101:3)

If I'm understanding correctly, Nebula is simply trying to decipher how a non-Christian could believe in any sort of tendancy for one to "get back what they give out". If you believe morality is an artificial human construct in the first place, then your answer to her question would be that there is no such tendancy outside of human interference because there is no system of morality outside of human constructs. However, there are many people who claim not to believe in the Christian God (or, in many cases, any god) who still carry some idea of "reaping what you sow", or, more commonly, karma. She wants to know how a person who believes in no God can still believe in such a function. That's her question, if I'm not mistaken.

Mabye that impetuous son of yours will grow up to be a missionary...

Amazing, isn't it? They're espousing "Peace and safety" by trying to establish a covenant with folks who want them to be a big hole in the ground. Yet, God's Word said it was coming.

Christian rock players believe they make the type of music they do for God and not for the devil, but the fact remains that doing something that is not right in God's sight is wrong regardless of the motive. Therefore, you need to determine whether the plan is right in God's sight, regardless of your motives for doing it. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked..." -------------- It seems you are talking about having these children dance at church services. Completely neglecting the question of whether performance dancing is ever appropriate, I do not believe that this would be appropriate in any case. The church is not an arena for performance, but rather a place dedicated to the edification of God's people and the direct worship of the Lord. Classical music is not ungodly. Yet, we do not hold classical music recitals during church services, but rather use music whose words (if instrumental, the words are widely known and recognisable) are edifying to the people and glorifying to God. Our church has a softball team. It does not play as part of a church service, because, once again, a softball game or demonstration is out of place in a church service. ---------- As far as your statements about the type of dancing you'd be doing, I don't know what your standards for godly music are, but please consider that all music affects our emotions and bodies. I do not believe that listening to jazz in the first place is the best way to go... much less dancing in the manner that accompanies it. ---------- Your idea to get the girls of your church in a position to do a fun activity accompanied by devotions is a good one. Perhaps you could pray about other possibilities? In any case, pray about this further .

Ephesians 5:22 and Colossians 3:18 speaking of wives submitting to husbands, 1 Peter 2:13 speaking of Christians submitting to the laws of man, and James 4:7 speaking of sinning Christians submitting to God all use the following word: hupotasso: to subordinate; refl. to obey:--- be under obedience (obedient), put under, subdue unto, be in subjection, submit self unto. Moreover, in 1 Peter 3 wives are instructed to submit to their husbands "Even as Sara obeyed Abraham." This word is not hupotasso, but rather another word, hupakoe, translated many, many times as "obey". In fact, it is the same word translated "obey" in Colossians 3:20 and 22, the first telling children to obey their parents, the second telling servants to obey their masters. I don't know how to explain your statement except to think that you simply were mistaken or misinformed. The Greek most definitely instructs women to obey their husbands,

Nooooooo! Not windbaggery! Anything but windbaggery! Oh please, please, spare us the windbaggery!

Just want to clear one thing up... You mean that the person has trusted in Christ BEFORE dying and then goes directly to heaven after death, correct? In other words, you are not trying to combine a question of "soul sleep" with one of having a second chance at salvation after death. I just want to make sure you're not asking both questions at the same time, as that would complicate things quite a bit . Before continuing with this topic, you should visit the "Soapbox Debate" room and read the one on soul sleep. Many points have been addressed at length there.

Actually, it'll be broken after only 3 and 1/2. ;-O

I absolutely believe that the rapture takes place the same way as the Jewish wedding traditions! Actually, my original post went more in depth about that very topic. I shortened it in a way that may have lead to misunderstanding (it was very late, and I was half asleep ) This is the progression: The Bridegroom returns for the Bride, at which time the marriage takes place. Then the Bride and Bridegroom are secluded together for SEVEN DAYS! After that time, they emerge and the time of feasting ensues. The feasting includes the "invited guests", who clearly cannot be the bride! They are those who accept Christ during the tribulation. OK?