And men are “prone” to anger and therefore unsuitable for leadership in the Church.
You can’t have one without the other.
Making a case for women in leadership
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
You can’t have one without the other.
Thanks.
I have asked if you are married.
I asked if you have been around many women.
I have to conclude your answer is "NO."
I am married for the second time. You can’t have keep your ignorant assumptions to yourself.
I agree but let me note: it sounds like God chose to use Deborah and Jael as a bit of a shame towards the men. Barak was chosen and God Himself told him to make war, but when he didn't obey God sent Deborah to convince him. And Jaels' involvement was a straight-up dis for Baraks' lack of faith. It does sound like The Lord's first choice was to use the men, but when they lacked faith He appointed two women.
Just thoughts! I appreciate you standing up for Deborah, she is one of my favorite Bible characters ❤.
Circular reasoning is considered a logical fallacy often employed in argument. It assumes the premise is true because the conclusion is true... or something like that. It argues, if A, then B, so if B, then A, but it's presented as if there are no ifs.Then your circular posting has me stumped.
Have a nice day.
no I am stating facts it is in scripture that these women were called by God to do what they did you just don't like it because it is a major flaw in your theology.
The fact is it is scripture no matter how you look at it a women a judge another a prophetess women preaching the gospel these aren't exceptions andd if they are show me how and why
You haven't made your case. The whole of Scripture and majority of Church teaching disagrees with you.
I have made my case several times you just reject it and make statements of confiddence without providing any proof at all you say scripture and church teachings disagree but you cannot providing any evidence to back it up
if I am so in the wrong you should easily be able to disprove me but you can't and won't
prove me wrong
Several things, traditionally mens jobs(even the military), traditional mens clothing, leadership in the church(in some cases even being pastors) to name a few.
Aren't Paul's writings specifically about the church? The only thing other place I can think of that puts men above women is in reference to a marriage. I'm not aware of anything written to preclude women from leadership anywhere else.
Thee is no verse or passage in the law requiring women to be silent and under submission. Paul would have known this, suggesting strongly that 1 Corinthians 14;34-35 was not written by him. His shocked reaction in verse 36 makes sense if he is responding to someone else’s words, but not otherwise.
You stick with the clear nonsense though.
I agree with the first two , but the third is the very subject of this thread and is obviously contested.
Your assertion that A equals B, the marriage structure equals the church structure. However, that Christ is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman, his body, is not equative with Christ being head of the church, His body. The Church already has a Head, and pastors' have no marital rights or privileges with Christ's body.I know what it is. The other poster didn't bother explaining what he saw as circular reasoning in my post but did manage to go round in circles with his accusation.
edited #619
Your assertion that A equals B, the marriage structure equals the church structure. However, that Christ is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman, his body, is not equative with Christ being head of the church, His body. The Church already has a Head, and pastors' have no marital rights or privileges with Christ's body. This is equating the man with Christ, and a man should be as Christ in caring over his woman, but the Church is not the pastor's woman. That is equating males, exclusively, with Christ, but He has no equal. Although the Pope or Ayatollah might argue that He does.
Your assertion that A equals B, the marriage structure equals the church structure. However, that Christ is head of the man, and the man is head of the woman, his body, is not equative with Christ being head of the church, His body. The Church already has a Head, and pastors' have no marital rights or privileges with Christ's body. This is equating the man with Christ, and a man should be as Christ in caring over his woman, but the Church is not the pastor's woman. That is equating males, exclusively, with Christ, but He has no equal. Although the Pope or Ayatollah might argue that He does.