misogyny

[Wolf Bridges]

3 minutes ago, Davida said:

Sounds good to me - YaY!! we have agreement!!

Have a good evening Too!!

Yay!  And thank you. I shall.  

[shanee]

On 5/15/2017 at 2:32 PM, Spock said:

Heck, why do you think God made woman anyhow?

Gen 2:20  And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. 
Gen 2:21  And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 
Gen 2:22  And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 
Gen 2:23  And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 
Gen 2:24  Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 
 

[Spock]

13 hours ago, Wolf Bridges said:

Yay!  And thank you. I shall.  

Hey wolf,

we did the best we could to represent our side to this debate, so we can go in peace believing we served the Lord in doing that. I know the other side doesn't agree we were serving the Lord, but some day we will all find out who was right.

I know the other side hangs their coat on a few verses from Pauls letters and of course, we have our verses to counter those, but leaving all that aside, what does COMMON SENSE tell us?   Why would God turn down anyone (or limit them) who wants to serve Him in any capacity? Does that make sense to you? It really doesn't to me.  Men have turned away help for many reasons over the years - race, religion, color, gender.  Do you really think God has the same excluding standard? 

On a side note, it reminds me of the Catholic Church's need for more priests because they don't have enough "few good men."  If you just let your priests be allowed to marry you just might have a lot more candidates. Duh! And you might not even have all that sex scandal that follows your church. 

Anyhow, I respect the other side looking to scripture to answer this dilemma. I just happen to think they are losing perspective of the BIG PICTURE while chasing irrelevant details. But that is my viewpoint, and yours too, not everyone's. 

Someday, what is hidden will come out in the light. Which side was really serving the Lord on this one?

cheers,

spock

[OneLight]

14 minutes ago, Spock said:

Why would God turn down anyone (or limit them) who wants to serve Him in any capacity?

Either way you look at it, God knows what He is doing.  The problem I find is when people do not know how to find how scripture agrees with itself, so they build doctrine upon what they like and ignore the scripture that they think does not agree to their doctrine. 

I really don't see anyone saying women cannot server, but God has written in scripture guidelines how they server.  If you disagree with clearly written scripture, then that is between you and God.

 

[Spock]

1 hour ago, Davida said:

Proverbs 3:5 "Rely not upon your own understanding...."

"Why would God...?". Well-- He doesn't --God tells us how and where we are to serve. There is plenty of areas where women can serve without being the Head of a Church. 

When Faulty human reasoning is relied upon over scripture it  can't produce Godly results. The Human tendency is to follow their own desires rather then abide by scripture and make every justification to do so.

Btw,this is the same scenario repeated: God said you can eat from all the trees of the garden but ONE--of that one Thou    shall Not Eat....what does Eve  want?? to eat from THAT tree.   There are Tons of ways to lead and teach and have a ministry---but some women want to be the Head of a Church.

Scripture tells that Christ is the Head of the Body, and man is Head of the woman --that is God's design and that should be period- end of story. 

"Hath God said...?"

 

Unfortunately davida, we know of many instances where people have turned scripture around to make it say what they want it to say, to support their agenda. And I'm not even talking about looney tunes like Jim Jones (I think that was his name). 

This was clearly done during the Civil War when many Southern Christians used Pauls writings to support slavery.  

Motive is always an important consideration when debating issues. What motives if any do the parties involved have? My motive could be tainted by my desire to see my daughters dreams to be fulfilled- to shepherd a flock.  Someone else's deep motive may be one born out of jealousy or chauvinism. Sometimes these deep motives could cloud our ability to see clearly what is before us. We can even be fooled into thinking we are serving the Lord, when in fact we are serving ourselves. 

So, I do factor in COMMON SENSE too because I do believe God also wants us to use our brain and ponder matters from all perspectives in totality.  But again, that is me. 

Edited May 17, 2017 by Spock

[Wolf Bridges]

2 hours ago, Spock said:

Hey wolf,

we did the best we could to represent our side to this debate, so we can go in peace believing we served the Lord in doing that. I know the other side doesn't agree we were serving the Lord, but some day we will all find out who was right.

I know the other side hangs their coat on a few verses from Pauls letters and of course, we have our verses to counter those, but leaving all that aside, what does COMMON SENSE tell us?   Why would God turn down anyone (or limit them) who wants to serve Him in any capacity? Does that make sense to you? It really doesn't to me.  Men have turned away help for many reasons over the years - race, religion, color, gender.  Do you really think God has the same excluding standard? 

On a side note, it reminds me of the Catholic Church's need for more priests because they don't have enough "few good men."  If you just let your priests be allowed to marry you just might have a lot more candidates. Duh! And you might not even have all that sex scandal that follows your church. 

Anyhow, I respect the other side looking to scripture to answer this dilemma. I just happen to think they are losing perspective of the BIG PICTURE while chasing irrelevant details. But that is my viewpoint, and yours too, not everyone's. 

Someday, what is hidden will come out in the light. Which side was really serving the Lord on this one?

cheers,

spock

People hold to their position in the faith of righteousness, or right-ness with God's will and plan. No faulting that. 

If women were not called to serve the Father and deliver his Son's testament to the world there wouldn't be a single woman pastor serving God anywhere on his created earth. But there are. And that then is the final evidence that sustains the scriptures, delivers the words of Christ to those who seek hungrily for salvation , and operate in service to their calling. 

All else is opinion to the contrary. God's purpose is greater always in all ways. 

Cheers, 

 

[Wolf Bridges]

5 minutes ago, Davida said:

That is totally not true. People have free will . People lack discernment, and people hear their own voice rather then obeying  what God has given us in Scripture.  There are Wolves in the Churches, preaching from podiums & writing under the guise of being Christian authors that are preaching counter to what is in the Word of GOD - that is not God "calling " ANY of them to serve by speaking contrary to His Word.

What is totally, is the pride and arrogance that makes the absolute statement to refute what was said about God calling people to his service. 

Speaking in absolutes as to what God totally won't do is blasphemy. And far worse that would get me banned if I dared speak truth. 

 

[Churchmouse]

3 minutes ago, Davida said:

That is totally not true. People have free will . People lack discernment, and people hear their own voice rather then obeying  what God has given us in Scripture.  There are Wolves in the Churches, preaching from podiums & writing under the guise of being Christian authors that are preaching counter to what is in the Word of GOD - that is not God "calling " ANY of them to serve by speaking contrary to His Word.

Agreed. There are also people who have a chip on their shoulder with something to prove the world and Christianity as well. Those people are more into proving they can stand behind a podium and recite scripture, but that doesn't mean the Holy Spirit did anything at all. I once went to a church with a female pastor, if that's what you want to call it. The building was less than 1/2 full and it felt more like someone reading out of technical manual  than having church services. The person, also a female who was running the sound machine for the hymns had to come down and try to stir up the congregation to sing above a wispier and the pastor there had to try and shame the people there into volunteer to help out at some future church function.

I had to leave, I was so upset at the way that place was ran. I'll never go back.

[Churchmouse]

7 minutes ago, Wolf Bridges said:

What is totally, is the pride and arrogance that makes the absolute statement to refute what was said about God calling people to his service. 

Speaking in absolutes as to what God totally won't do is blasphemy. And far worse that would get me banned if I dared speak truth. 

 

There is no arrogance when refuting the personal assumptions of someone who can not prove their statement. All we can go upon is what Jesus put foreword in the Bible as to how the church was set up and the history that has been set in stone, by God as to who has always been in positions of authority in the church and that was men.

[Wolf Bridges]

10 minutes ago, Churchmouse said:

There is no arrogance when refuting the personal assumptions of someone who can not prove their statement. All we can go upon is what Jesus put foreword in the Bible as to how the church was set up and the history that has been set in stone, by God as to who has always been in positions of authority in the church and that was men.