Because women are substandard? nostr:note1x922kl9ma4gz3tepgxx57ezd0ht05jemv8kp730ttyu4mga4dthszgvc6c
Discussion
Whoever needs centralized "church" leadership is a ridiculous clown who should be flogged in the town square.
It’s not like she’s driving him around in a motor vehicle or voting…
No, because God disallows it--in 1 Timothy 2 for one example, which is the verse nostr:nprofile1qqsr26r4lltjnvrwadxp67ns58m4qpzaqemhf5sup7hlujhjh7t296qprpmhxue69uhhqun9d45h2mfwwpexjmtpdshxuet5qy8hwumn8ghj7mn09eehgu3wvdeqzrnhwden5te0dehhxtnvdakz77f8s05 basically quoted (see [verse 12](http://blb.sc/002nN0)).
yes. substandard according to the standard set by God.
Oh yes. God, the wonderfully mythical being we cannot prove….🙄😂 #Donttrustverify.
> The fool says in his heart, 'there is no God.'
The anti-theist has neither argument nor excuse. I dare you to read [Romans 1](https://esv.org/Rom+1).
It's all women.
Disagree, friend. The article above fails to persuade: it does not fit the wider context of Scripture from Genesis forward, nor even its immediate context (I believe it's obvious that Paul has Genesis 3 at the forefront of his mind). It's not popular today, but the fact remains: Church office (elders and deacons) is for qualified men.
1 Timothy chapter 3 is typically used to support women serving as deacons.
It is a debated point, true.
But a plain reading of the qualifications Paul gives to both Timothy and Titus, for both elders and deacons, include qualifications for _their wives also_. It takes some mental gymnastics (in my opinion) to ignore the necessary presuppositions underlying those texts (can a woman have a "wife"? On what ground can we overwrite 'his' with the de-gendered 'a person's' and 'wife' with the de-gendered 'spouse'? I don't think we can without succumbing to the charge of blatant eisegesis).
Beyond that, if further argument is even needed--and I don't think it should be--is the point that the office of deacon _carries authority_, and is therefore included in the prohibition.
Consider: Gregory Reynolds, "[Phoebe Was a Deaconess, But She Was Not Ordained](https://opc.org/os.html?article_id=868)"
Among the many helpful points Reynolds brings out, is this simple one: to 'ordain' _means_ 'to bestow with authority.'
Also consider: Daniel Schrock, "The Churchly Authority of the Office of Deacon":
- [Part 1 - Acts 6, Elders, and Deacons](https://gospelreformation.net/the-churchly-authority-of-the-office-of-deacon-2/)
- [Part 2 - The Representative Authority of Deacons](https://gospelreformation.net/the-churchly-authority-of-the-office-of-deacon-3/)
- [Part 3 - Deacons and Church Power](https://gospelreformation.net/the-churchly-authority-of-the-office-of-deacon/)
It’s my understanding that the Greek word for wives could also be translated to women in which case your plain reading hypothesis wouldn’t make much sense.
I’m not sure I’ve heard the argument that women shouldn’t hold offices of authority. Though, I am familiar with camps of people that don’t believe women should have teaching ability over men.
Those points aside, I think there’s a good argument to be made for the biblical elevation of female status comparatively. Genesis is the only creation story where women are also created in the image of God. The first people to declare the gospel were women.
I don’t really have a firm position on female leadership in the church, it’s something I’m still working through as a believer.
Paul is speaking about men (plural) who would be deacons, so he speaks of _their wives_ -- each wife of each man in question. He didn't mean each one's wives, as he had already limited the office to those 'with one wife."
Regarding 'authority' -- it's right there in [1 Tim 2:12](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/1ti/2/12/s_1121012): "I do not permit a woman to teach _or usurp authority_ over a man." And given the context immediately following, this is a _creational_ principle, not a _cultural_ one. The same creational principle appears in 1 Cor. 11.
No question that both Christ himself and Christianity elevated (thus restoring) the general status of women in society, especially in the context of that day.
Why would there be qualifications listed for the wives of deacons but not the wives of elders? It makes more sense to me that he was describing women than wives in that context.
I guess I’m being picky with the word authority being used. How does this apply in non-religious settings? Would you argue that women should not have authority over men in the workplace? There’s no “gotcha” coming, I’m just curious on how that application affects your world in other contexts.
There are qualifications for both right in the same letter. And he is speaking about _their_ wives--as in, the wife of each man under consideration for office.
That’s an interesting thought. I’m on the absolutely edge of my knowledge on the topic so I’m really out of rebuttal points.
I can explain why it is a bad idea on a pragmatic common sense type of way but I might have to write an article.
I am going to leave a quick thought penny.
Paul writes that if you have a problem with your brother you should take him aside and discuss your issue with him.
The word brother is important because I have no business stepping outside with another mans wife or daughter to argue and complain about why I am not happy with... whatever.
Do you see the logic.
Anyway...
Read this and weep. (jokey tone)
https://echdel.npub.pro/post/dismembered-spouse-barbara-streisand-and-a-kick-in-the-dick-1ai2py/
i love my mother and she is the best woman in the world .,❤️
Oh, ew. That misogyny is an ugly look.
The Bible says women cannot teach the scripture.
Good for the book written by dead old men. Ffs.
You’re gay
Surprisingly, I'm only half way. But thanks for playing. Tell him what he's won, Bob.
Bi is wrong buddy
Were you trying to spell "bigotry" and forgot how? Because that's the wrong thing here, buddy.
Oh aren’t you clever. I’m saying that bisexuality is wrong. Same sex relations are wrong for the same reason materialism is wrong. Plus, it’s unnatural.
Didn’t the church have a big scandal on their hands because the creepy old men they let be priests were diddling everyone?
Don’t forget it’s also been edited and translated many times over
Prove it.
I do not wish to discuss your favorite book
🫳
📖
I know, because you are evil and selfish.
Wow that escalated quickly. No… it’s because i don’t take it as gospel (so to speak) and i know that people who do take it very seriously and get really upset, easily
As you can see 🥲
You don’t take it as gospel because you commit evil in defiance of it. If you were not rebelling against God, you would accept it as gospel. So the fact that you do not take it as gospel tells me that you are evil. It’s simple.
You can’t be a cunt and then get mad when people are rude back to you.
I simply do not fear or worship your god ser. Please calm down and/or mute me if that helps. None of this makes me evil. I’m actually quite a decent person
You are in fact evil. You will fear Him, but it will be too late. All honor and glory be to God. May you find Jesus.
Have you considered the possibility of a misunderstanding?
We all have evil within us, it is our nature. Anyone who rejects God is completely evil. No amount of good done can balance out the evil.
Are you equipped with the knowledge and discernment to know when someone has truly rejected God?
I am. Hebrews 4:12.
Those who reject the Word of God, have rejected God. John 1. The Word is God.
How do you know what rejecting the Word looks like, reliably? These are just men's words you're showing me. How do you translate them into real knowledge for yourself as applies in context of the world?
With the same uncertainty, how do you or I understand what your interlocutor means with his words?
They are not just men’s words. Perhaps you should read the Bible.
And the other guy is an atheist. He is certainly rejecting God.
You have a strong case on both counts, but I still feel like you've sidestepped the question. You sound just as closed minded as most atheists I've run into. I find it distasteful and counterproductive to getting others to understand you or to discover the truth. You may as well shut up about it as compared to your current approach, from a pragmatic stance.
If you haven't asked yourself these basic epistemic questions that I asked you, then you will have an even harder time answering the questions of those who do not explicitly recognize God.
If on the other hand, your goal is to alienate those who do not explicitly recognize God and use your interpretation of the Bible, such as to physically remove them from your life, you are succeeding.
I was an atheist. I do not care to convince atheists, because they do not listen. Only a close call with death can change them.
The Bible is the word of God. 2 Timothy 3:16.
It is not wise of you to act like you know better than the Word.
You literally act like you know better than the Word because of your authoritarian stance on your ability to interpret it and apply it correctly.
Your assumption about atheists only being convinced by a close call with death is not universal and only shows me that you lack logical rigor. The existence of one case contrary to that disproves it. Further, if you wrongly identify someone as atheist who is just agnostic but open to discussion, by these assumptions you have succeeded only in preventing them from hearing.
You need to work on yourself, bro. Jesus was a lot less assuming than you. A LOT. Because he understood and applied logic. Jesus is unassuming. You have Him with you, but you are not listening.
I do not have an authoritarian stance on the Word. I have a biblical stance on the Word.
You are here denying that the Bible is the Word of God. You are acting like it is just the writings of some men, forgetting who precisely inspired and preserved it.
The Bible is perfect. Anyone who denies it, denies God. This isn’t a matter of debate.
My discernment of his rejection of God was on point, considering he outright said he doesn’t believe in God. This makes him evil. No amount of good works can offset the evil nature of man.
No son of Adam deserves to go to heaven. Not one.
And don’t compare me to Jesus. I am not Him. I cannot even approach His glory.
Seek and ye shall find. Perhaps you yourself are not seeking the proper mode of action.
All who reject the Bible are evil. There is only one reason to rebel. Rebellion against the Creator is a foolish mistake
Absolute indoctrination rooted in fear. Couldn’t be me. If i die and it all ends up to have been true, i will have lived a good life without going around accusing everyone else of being evil. Dare i say i might even stand a chance of getting through the pearly gates. After all, God is good i hear. He’d understand my skepticism. You don’t get to be the judge of my fate that’s for sure.
With that said i suspect that when we die we’re just dead and gone, and i intend to live accordingly (which does not involve being evil)
Done talking to you though. Good luck out there 🫡
When you die, you will be judged for your rebellion against God who is clearly crying out to you.
100 years of sin and an eternity separated from all Love. God is great, He is also righteous, and the unrighteous cannot stand in His presence. He is just, and all retribution is His.
You did not choose to rebel. You are not one of the elect. There will be no convincing you, because you were predestined to fall, and to suffer the loveless hellfire. At least, that’s how it seems to me.
Remember that fear is a signal.
De todos esse é um dos piores argumentos que muitos apresentam quando confrontados pela natureza Intrínseca da bíblia sagrada, querendo perverter seus ensinamentos ou subverter de alguma forma de modo que cauterize suas mentes. Aceitando apenas versos como "Deus é amor", "Deus lhe aceita" e "Deus é fiel" se excluindo de suas obrigações da nova aliança, aceitando apenas partes que lhe confortem quando em suma o objetivo é confrontar a natureza caída do homem.
...did you (a bitcoiner on nostr!) mean to parrot the Neo-Marxists?
I dare you to read Lindsay & Pluckrose, _Cynical Theories_. "Exposing the power dynamic embedded in the text" is fiat scholarship.
🤙
You're a fool.
No. It literally says it.
Read it for yourself. You can dislike what it says, even disobey what it says, but you cannot deny that is what it says.
It's specifically in the context of church authority and preaching in corporate worship, though--other contexts are not only permitted, but even commanded.
Se não gosta do que lê crie uma bíblia para você e viva conforme sua própria realidade.
A semeadura é opcional, mas a colheita é obrigatória!
Hard truth: if you want to follow God’s word, Women leading a church and teaching men is discouraged.
Good thing I'm not interested in bigotry and hatred.
Hard truth: that is incorrect.
I’m thankful I have scripture to consult and rely on, instead of the words from the proud, arrogant, and fragile human spirit. I’m welcome to changing my mind on the issue, but I doubt you would be.
Amen! This is the proper perspective. We should rely on Scripture and use discernment when we listen openly to what others teach.
The first to preach the risen Christ to men was a woman.
Priscilla taught Apollos.
Deborah judged Israel, which was a position of spiritual authority.
Women’s words are in the Scripture. In the Magnificat, Mary teaches you about God.
The Holy Spirit is poured out on sons and daughters alike to prophesy.
Paul likely sent his letter to the Romans, which is scripture, to be delivered and preached by Phoebe, a deaconess.
Yes comrade, I never said Women don’t have a roll in the church or in working within the spirit to bring forth God’s will.
I said women were not to be used to LEAD the church.
New Testament readings:
1 Corinthians 14:34-45
1 Timothy 2:11-12
Chuck Missler does some pretty great expository sermons through these verses.
In short, if lead by a truly Godly man, I believe the tensions created by modern day feminism has no ground to stand.
How are you missing that all the things I mentioned are women in leadership?
It’s becoming clear your heart isn’t open to change. You responded pretty quickly for having really dug into actual scripture I provided, that doesn’t require any twisting to understand and gave you a recommendation from someone respected with sound teaching.
I don’t have to convince you, that is the duty of the spirit on a humbled heart. Since you’re clinging to your examples, I’ll reiterate my understanding for that of a heart of a babe. Again, I’m open to being wrong.
I’m not “missing” anything as you’ve stated. You’ve supplied great examples of the IMPORTANCE of women among the church. I agree that women’s importance is equal to that of men in ensuring God’s will. But LEADING the church is very different and I believe scripture makes that clear, not because women are lesser, as you’ve been poisoned to believe, but because they have another calling that men cannot fulfill for the church. Your examples don’t have much merit in the sense of LEADERSHIP in the church.
You stated:
Priscilla tought Apollos: great! This is very different from LEADING the church.
On Deborah: To say that Deborah was a prophetess and a leader in Israel, does not seem to say anything directly about whether or not women should be preachers in the church.
Suppose I had a cat named Lucy. Suppose I told you that because Lucy is a cat and because cats are animals and because dogs are animals, therefore Lucy is a dog. I’m not sure you would find that convincing because, while all cats are animals, not all animals are cats. My argument is built upon a significant category error.
Likewise, it is not true to say that because Deborah was a prophet and prophets are leaders, therefore women can be any type of leader including the preaching pastor of a church. The difference between a prophet and the preaching pastor of a church may well be as profound as the difference between a cat and a dog. Therefore the argument simply isn’t relevant or compelling.
Women’s words in scripture: again, great! But vastly different in LEADING the church. I never said women shouldn’t speak or be quoted for wisdom.
“Paul likely sent his letter to the Romans, which is scripture, to be delivered and preached by Phoebe, a deaconess.”: key words here, you stated “likely”, so we don’t in fact know… and if it was simply “READ” by Phoebe i would again urge you that reading Paul’s letters is a far cry of leadership.
You mentioned deaconess. Yes those exist and should, but submit to elders, who submit to Christ.
Again, go seek the spirit in the scripture I sent. Put the ego aside, your brother/comrade is not saying you are lesser.
You may take it up with the Author...
It should not be a surprise to anyone that Christians believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and seek to obey accordingly.
If that were true there would be a lot more good in our world.
True. But, liking or not, that’s not the only religion out there. Looooots of satanists teaching our kids these days.
I have good news for you.
God requires, from all people, perfect love toward Him, and toward one another.
But none of us do this perfectly, not even one--none, that is, except Christ.
The just penalty for offending a holy God is death.
Christ loved his people and took the penalty that we deserved, and by faith we can receive the reward that He earned and deserved--eternal life.
Being a Christian does not mean we are good (though we try) it mainly means we are forgiven, and we try to obey as best as we can, by grace, out of gratitude for this free gift of life in Christ.
That's the 'good news'--the forgiveness of sins, and eternal life, a pure, undeserved, gift of grace--if we will only believe, and receive it.
Women should not lead men. It’s like asking a sheep to lead wolves. Whatever, what’s the point in arguing? What’s another fart after you shat yourself? Fuck it…
Laser is a Colossal dumbass. He can be safely ignored.
Equal value before God, different roles.
Women don't belong in church leadership.
That's not a value statement.
Women don't belong in war, either.
This entire thread is a perfect example as to why Holy Scripture AND Holy Tradition should never be separated. 🙏😔
Ressuscitando grandes discussões, dê também seus 2 centavos de opinião.
#Feminismo #Cristianismo #Catolicismo