Evidence for God from Science

I don't listen to them personally. But I don't listen to televangelists or homosexual preachers either.

TellMe~Ily wrote:Well,it's a strong debated issue raised by Paul's words in a letter to Timothy.
Your opinion(s) on women preaching?
I personally agree with this viewpoint:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e988cBOC ... 47&index=2

This is a great video.... Thanks for sharing this. Frankly I wish that more women would become teachers of the word.

Frankly I wish that more women would become teachers of the word.

yeah, I do too..wink* wink*
haha, I'm kidding, although I might not be as funny as I think
But yes, It would nice.

Gman wrote:

TellMe~Ily wrote:Well,it's a strong debated issue raised by Paul's words in a letter to Timothy.
Your opinion(s) on women preaching?
I personally agree with this viewpoint:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e988cBOC ... 47&index=2

This is a great video.... Thanks for sharing this. Frankly I wish that more women would become teachers of the word.

no problem!

*sigh* I quoted that verse in another thread. Read it cafully. 1Timothy 2:12. Note he says, and I quote, "But *I* suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." KJV. Paul (the author of this book) is a sexist. He says he doesn't let women preach... Jesus actually promoted anyone with the Holy Spirit to preach.
Thats my two cents, let women preach and praise God. God bless!

Sexist? Uhm . . .

• I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

What makes Paul's rejection of a woman teaching or having authority over a man any less authoritative Scripture than his command that "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men" or that we should "pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting"? Both these verses say what Paul wants. What about every other passage in Scripture where Paul issues a command?

I understand how in our culture you are uneasy about the charge of sexism, but calling Paul a sexist and throwing out a verse is hardly an appropriate way to handle Scripture, my friend.

I have changed my mind on this issue. For years it didn't sit right with me. But lately I've been looking at it from more of a big picture. There is a whole world out there lost and dying and each Christian has a ministry to fulfill. So I've changed my position. I retract my previous statement. Women preachers: go preach. Peace.

I;m not necessarily pushing for women preachers per se....but there is a sad trend I have seen in many of the more conservative churches. It seems that in the effort to maintain this proclamation against an office of authority, they have produced a generation of wimpy women and isolated church fellowships. We have become churches of stereotypes, of women's fellowship groups that seem to be willing to settle for crafts and only "womens' studies". I can't even remember being in a church where the women's fellowship groups study anything other than "how to be a better mom" or "How to be a better wife"...and the men's group ends of becoming some elite group that gets to do the cool stuff. I know I'm exaggerating to some extent but I don't like the conclusions that have been drawn and the results of the resistance to women preachers.

I remember with fondness a sunday school class at one church where the men and women were togethe and they actually talked and listened to one another. Amazingly. It is sad to think over the amazingly wise women I have known and the fact that they didn't even teach sunday school.

Refusing to ordain women teachers is one thing...but I think at this point many churches are reacting by overly stressing the roles.

I;m not sure I would be comfortable with a woman preacher (probably because the churches that have accepted ordinations are also very liberal so my image of a woman preacher is also linked to a bad church)....but I am constantly disappointed in the churches that I have visited who seem to be encouraging these separatists agendas.

I like what you're saying here Zoe. The Bible does give us guidelines but they were never intended to result in narrowly defined stereotypes that limit God's reach and work from happening through Christians in this world.

We need to promote more conservative woman preachers. The only problem is that most conservitives tend not to want a woman to preach.

zoegirl wrote:I;m not sure I would be comfortable with a woman preacher (probably because the churches that have accepted ordinations are also very liberal so my image of a woman preacher is also linked to a bad church)....but I am constantly disappointed in the churches that I have visited who seem to be encouraging these separatists agendas.

If we promote the woman preacher as a conservitive then maybe we can change that.

ageofknowledge wrote:I like what you're saying here Zoe. The Bible does give us guidelines but they were never intended to result in narrowly defined stereotypes that limit God's reach and work from happening through Christians in this world.

I am agreeing with you again... weird. lol. Anyway I do agree with what you say and what you said earlier.

ageofknowledge wrote:There is a whole world out there lost and dying and each Christian has a ministry to fulfill. So I've changed my position. I retract my previous statement. Women preachers: go preach. Peace.

Agreed! God bless!

Needed to write a respose here to this.

Jac3510 wrote:Sexist? Uhm . . .

• I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity. I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting. In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

What makes Paul's rejection of a woman teaching or having authority over a man any less authoritative Scripture than his command that "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men" or that we should "pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting"? Both these verses say what Paul wants. What about every other passage in Scripture where Paul issues a command?

I understand how in our culture you are uneasy about the charge of sexism, but calling Paul a sexist and throwing out a verse is hardly an appropriate way to handle Scripture, my friend.

Okay let me point something out. All of the apostels, (actually every important charater in the Bible) have some thing wrong with them. Thomas the doubter, Moses committed murder, Noah was a drunk, King David... well we all know what he did. My point is that there is no perfect person in the Bible. Yes Paul got somethings right, he also got things wrong too, he was imperfect just as we are. I hate it when, (and yes I have heard this and seen it written), people refer to Paul as St. Paul the Divine... he is just another person, who is capable of messing up, just like us. If we accepted scripture from only perfect people then we would have no Bible at all. Another fact is that many people back in those days had problems with women having authority. Another thing is that before Paul I put the words of Christ. Paul may have made some good points, but they all started with *I*, which you just proved. Now if he had said "God comands" like the prophets of old I may adhere to him a bit more, but this isn't the case at times. What of all the scriptures that were taken from the public square cause they didn't fit the agenda of the Church at the time? Some of them point to woman preachers leading churces. I look at these writtings form time to time and see very little, if any, problems with them. What makes Paul's letters to the Churces of his time anymore authoritative? I doubt he even realized they would be treated as Holy Scripture.
Any way I will write more later. God bless!
Oh and one more thing, what makes Paul's letters worth being in the Bible anyway? I don't mean that in a bad way, but why his letters? I have read some responses on other threads to this and I am still not very convinced. Any help would be great.

What makes Paul's letters to the Churces of his time anymore authoritative?

Are you really saying that Paul's letter's should not be regarded as inspired, inerrant Word of God? Are you saying that part of them aren't? Which parts? The parts we don't like? Maybe that whole sin thing is just an outmoded idea, too, right? And the stuff against homosexuality in Romans? What keeps us from saying that isn't really Scripture, too?

Denying the authority of Scripture is an awful high price to pay to avoid being culturally uncomfortable.

You didn't even answer a single question, you just asked more!
Okay I will answer what you said.

Jac3510 wrote:Are you really saying that Paul's letter's should not be regarded as inspired, inerrant Word of God? Are you saying that part of them aren't? Which parts? The parts we don't like? Maybe that whole sin thing is just an outmoded idea, too, right? And the stuff against homosexuality in Romans? What keeps us from saying that isn't really Scripture, too?

Paul's letters are questionable imo. I even asked what makes them authoritative, a simple answer would have sufficed. There are parts where he seems to be pushing his own agenda, and those are the parts I believe should not be considered absolute law. You have already proven that he loves to say *I* instead of "God commands" and that for me is enough. The prophets of old would not have accepted that. There are parts in Gensis that teach against homosexuality if it concerns you that much. It was not accepted by the Jews who were before us so it is not accepted by the Church. lol And no sin is not an outmoded idea, I just find it amusing that you apparently believe only Paul said such things when Christ himself said more on the matter. Again I must ask, why are his letters in the Bible, why not make them avalable seperatly? You failed to answer so I hope you will do so next time. I think there are other books out there that have worth as well, just an opinion though. Paul wrote letters to the Churchs of his time, so ofcourse I would wonder why they are in the Bible. Does not God say to test everything? God bless!
Okay wait we have gotten off topic... okay my point is this, Paul is the only one to speak out against a woman preaching. No where else in the Word have I found this. Why should he be able to invinte this new rule? I believe if the old prophets read his works they would be causious as well. I mean you no personal foul, (though you seem to have taken it like that for some odd reason). I believe Paul cannot say if a woman should preach or not. That's how I feel, end of story.

Paul's letters are questionable imo.

Then we have nothing more to discuss. You don't believe Paul's letters are the inspired Word of God. Frankly, I don't know why you bother thinking anything is the Word of God. I guess you get to decide what is and is not based on what you like . . . maybe Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John aren't Bible either.

Truth is, Gabriel, you have put yourself in the position of authority. You have put yourself over God. He has spoken, and you have said, "No. I disagree." That's between you and God, not me and you. But there is absolutely nothing more to say on the issue of female preachers (or ANYTHING Biblical), because my basis will ALWAYS be what the Bible says, whereas yours will be what Gabriel says.

God bless