Strong Women In Today's World

I don't know what you're saying, unless you're making the claim that godly people don't have to obey scripture, and that only people who reject God's word, who won't follow God's word, are obligated to follow God's word. E.g. a godly woman gets to use an epidural, but a woman who rejects God's word has to give birth without any painkiller.

We live in a fallen world, therefor farmers must deal with weeds to produce food and women deal with pain, even if with an epidural, in childbirth. It doesn't matter whether the farmer or the woman is godly. We live in a fallen world, therefor a woman is not to have authority over the man. It doesn't matter whether the woman is godly, but an ungodly woman won't follow God's word. A church with a female pastor is apostate.

Respectfully, you completely missed the point. God doesn't command farmers to fight with weeds, does He? He doesn't command men to eat with sweaty faces, does He?

There is a massive difference between a command and a declaration of certain consequence. I assert that Genesis 3:16 is the latter, and therefore every interpretation of later passages based on the idea that "men are to rule over women because it says so in Genesis 3:16" is deeply flawed. If you see that verse as a statement of consequence, the oppression of women by men in (almost) every culture makes perfect sense as an unfortunate result of sin.

With attitudes and teaching like that believe I will not be attending whatever church you are a part of. Jesus does not care who teaches, as long as it’s the correct message..

I haven't heard a female preacher yet who gives the correct message. For starters, they preach nonsense, if not outright lies, on the issue of female preachers. E.g. "it is likely that Phoebe, Priscilla, Nympha, Euodia and Syntyche, the Chosen Lady, and other NT women, were female church leaders who functioned as pastors." Lies, lies, lies.

It is likely that Priscilla (a new convert with her husband) was a church leader who functioned as a pastor because we're told she was with her husband and they spoke privately to Apollos, a man who was preaching??? Blatant, idiotic, shameful lies. Am I clear?

If we're not fired or quit our jobs, (we're laid off or something happened that we couldn't do it anymore), we get six months of what we call "unemployment." That's a bit less than how much we got paid at our jobs, but enough to live on until next job. Sometimes, in a bad economy, the government lengthens that, but I never lost my job then. I tended to lose it when 6-months was all I'd get. (It puts a fire under people to get a new job though.) I guess that can be counted as the government giving us food and a place to live, but that's good whether someone is renting or owning.

No job in six months, and it's possible to go on Welfare, which is when there is no income coming in and all the savings is gone. It's where we go when we don't make the 6-month mark, but they have different tiers for what you get. Since we owned our home, (and how owned is it if there is a mortgage? Something I keep wondering), they weren't giving us anything for housing. We ran out of our savings account and our retirement account before we ever could apply for that. (And our government is kind enough to penalize people for dipping into their retirement account before they retire, so take a good chunk -- twice.) The only thing Welfare gave us was food stamps, (about half what we use to buy food now) and health insurance. But, they wouldn't have done that if we had no way out; i.e. a backup plan to get out of Welfare within two years. We were unemployed for two years before we finally made it onto another government program -- disability.

I have no idea what people do if they can't find a job and aren't disabled. Our downward spiral was directly related to health issues -- separated health issues for both of us, no less. But, if you aren't working for a year or two, our government stops helping all together. Does your government have a cut off point?

Speaking of boorish, Priscilla and Aquila were mentioned three times together by Paul. Priscilla first, twice. Aquila once. They were BOTH tentmakers and helped finance Paul's missions. BOTH!

Matter of fact, if it weren't for rich women and rich widows, the NT would have looked quite different, given many of the women mentioned also financed Paul's travels. And Paul would have been hungry more often if Lydia, (not Lydia and her husband, just Lydia, who seemed to have no husband, just family), hadn't invited Paul to stay with them and eat, before asking him to baptize them.

The beginning of this new Way did what men haven't wanted to happen often before or after. The Way, (now known as "Christians"), accepted that women were equal in God's eyes with men. It accepted women's money, food, housing, and even teaching, considering there was a church in Lydia's house.

They were strong women! We still are. And we are for the same reason there are strong men. Because God is our strength. I too don't believe women should be pastors, however you'll be hard pressed to convince me women shouldn't teach. Titus 2 disagrees with you too much for me to ever agree with you.

I am sorry I offend you for being a woman and a feminist. I wouldn't need to continue being a feminist if men like you didn't try to second-class me into something less than you based solely on your gender.

I am nothing!

And yet, I am very much loved by the Lord. Jesus made me that, by obeying his Father and by overwhelming me with his love. So he took my nothingness and turned it into something wonderful.

I am sorry that offends you. I hope you come to understand how nothing becomes something by the Lord's will and love, so you will come to understand there are no "nothings" in the Lord. We are part of the body whether you choose to think less of us or not. He can help you get over your personal insecurities.

You haven't heard a women who gives the correct message yet, because you don't listen to women and create your own "theology" to sustain YOUR beliefs.

Yes, you're clear. You'd rather have your own beliefs and your own private interpretation than seek God.

It seems this forum is clogged up with egomaniacs like you preaching women-are-less.

That's about what I think of Genesis 3:16 being a "command".

with the guide of the Holy Spirit, I've been able to write multiple sermons. I'm no scholar, but I clearly know when the Holy Spirit is giving me something to write.

Feminists are shameless liars, as I've shown by example: They claim Priscilla was a church leader and a pastor. The Bible says she was a new convert who was with her husband when they spoke privately to a man who had been preaching.

Gen 3 says, "Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." That looks like a command to me. Are you reading the same thing? But, should any feminist come along and shamelessly lie about Gen 3, we have Paul's interpretation: 1 Timothy 2:12 (ESV) "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet." Shameless lying feminists say Paul and Jesus were just victims of a sexist pagan culture were women weren't allowed to be leaders. But, God himself crafted the Israelite culture, and Jesus was no slave to pagan culture. If you go on reading 1 Timothy 2, you'll see Paul points to Genesis and the fall to support himself.

Wow! Such anger. Have you EVER heard a woman preach? Or do you just like to rant and make things up? Like you did about Priscilla? Please give me the verse when it says Priscilla was a new convert. And, in the Greek culture, which Paul knew, mentioning someone first puts them ahead of the person that follows. So, Priscilla was first 2/3 times, because she was the leader.

I am a pastor, but I do not have my own church, because of physical reasons, at this time. No one was more shocked than when God called me to seminary, not once, but twice! (Two times because I disobeyed the first time, because, after all women can't be pastors!). I have worked as a chaplain in long term care, till I got too sick to walk around.

I preach in my church a few times a year, as my pastor asks. I get a lot of good response, I do a lot of research. But, I have never spoken on feminism, ever. I just follow the teaching series we are doing. So, Psalm 42, Matt 20, John 10:10, etc.

I would suggest you lose the hate and rhetoric. But, if you don't, I won't worry. I have God's approval, I don't need yours!

Don't mistake the utter destruction of a claim as a display of anger, but rather as the weakness of the claim being destroyed.

LOL! You point to Priscilla being mentioned first as proof she's a leader? Show me where in Greek culture that a woman is listed first in a married pair showing her leadership (hint, that's another lie some feminist told you).

Luke writes, "And he [Paul] found a Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla..." Let me tell you about Aquila... btw, his wife's name is Priscilla. Yeah, that looks like she's the leader.... NOT! LOL!

How do I know she was a new convert, because her husband was a Jew, so we can safely assume she was too. But, she's not important enough for Luke (the author of Acts) to tell us anything about her, so we have to make an assumption. LOL! So, Paul coverts the pair. So, they're new converts.

Paul leaves after some days and then the pair listens to not-a-woman Apollos preach, because there are no woman preachers in the Bible. Yes, we're told 1) Priscilla and 2) Aquila privately talked to Apollos. She's mentioned first merely as a gentlemanly cutesy, just as in our common phrase "Ladies and Gentlemen" not "Gentlemen and Ladies".

It's a blatant, idiotic, shameful lie to claim Priscilla was a church leader and pastor based what turns out to be an account of this new convert who may have followed her husband into a private conversation. In fact, every claim by feminists about female leaders/pastors in the Bible are shameless lies. Get back to me when you find a verse that reads, "Priscilla preached boldly in the synagogue."

You haven't shown anything about feminists, other than that your disgust for them. I haven't said anything about feminists or feminism, for or against. Let's deal with the text, not what feminists say about it.

Biblical commands have this structure: "You shall do 'x'" or "You shall not do 'x'". The command is given to the one (individual or corporate) who is required to perform (or avoid) the action. That simply is not the case with Genesis 3:16, where the latter part is an action by the husband, who is not being addressed.

Adam and Eve had just committed the first sin, making them both sinful. God is wise, loving, compassionate, and good. Why then would He put now-sinful man in charge over women? Would it not make a whole lot more sense that God was telling Eve that, in his now-sinful state, her husband would surely rule over her... not by God's command, but by his sinfulness? Would it not make more sense that the oppression of women by men in all history and most cultures is sad fulfillment of this prophetic statement? Would not Christ's death on the cross free women from this "curse"? Should not Christian men be the first to eschew such oppression?

You vastly overestimate the strength of your argument.

This is the first mention. The later ones put her first.

Assumptions are poor bases for doctrine.

Check the other references. Your reasoning is inconsistent. By the way, the word is "courtesy", not "cutesy".

The only thing "blatant, idiotic, and shameful" is your attitude.

standards set so high,
seems enough to discourage a lot of marriages