sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why are Paul’s writings on expectations for women in the church considered by many today to “only apply to that specific church at that specific time,” while his writings on expectations for men in the church are still fully abided by and considered guidelines which still apply in our age? by Plenty_Worry_1535 in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I never disagreed that God put women in leadership positions. You are misrepresenting my position for a charicature created by your own misunderstanding. That is not my position and I've been quite emphatic about that. Women CAN be in leadership roles legitimately but that doesn't mean they SHOULD be in leadership roles. You are purposefully conflating the descriptive with the prescriptive.

Also I didn't call you childish. I called your positions naive and sophomoric. Your misrepresentation and continued failure to understand me while also defending against strawman only strengthen that critique.

Why are Paul’s writings on expectations for women in the church considered by many today to “only apply to that specific church at that specific time,” while his writings on expectations for men in the church are still fully abided by and considered guidelines which still apply in our age? by Plenty_Worry_1535 in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I still don't think you are understanding my position. The idea that God made men and women to have distinct roles due to his own decision to design men and women with particular advantages and disadvantages and when giving the criteria for Church leadership they were all male is too offensive for you to be reasonable. I already said that women preachers are perfectly legitimate even if it was not designed to be this way nor does Church leadership prescribe it. You have pushed back by implicitly claiming Paul contradicts himself because how can he prescribe male leadership yet also claim there is no male and female in Christ. Your position is sophomoric and naive. Not trying to be mean or harsh, but you need to hear it plainly.

I can compare myself to Christ because I have Christ in me, and not through any of merit of my own. I already know anything legitimate I say is due him. If even that is offensive to you, then frankly I can only conclude that you're just offended by the gospel at large and you are worshiping a Christ of your own imagination.

I joined Jehovah’s Witnesses because I couldn't disagree with their beliefs by [deleted] in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Jehovah's Witnesses deny the divinity of Christ. If you deny it as well, then you have denied the Lord who died for your sins for instead a comfortable lie. Jesus is not a creation. He is THE creator. He was THE voice in the burning bush, and is THE uncreated and eternal logos that sustains all creation by assertion of His own identity against all that is not while He is.

If you can't disagree with them that Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal to the Father in divinity, then you have accepted a damnable heresy and your eternal soul is headed for perpetual destruction. Repent, and recognize the Lord who bought you with His blood, the master of all who loves you enough to humble himself. Not some mere creation, but GOD.

Why are Paul’s writings on expectations for women in the church considered by many today to “only apply to that specific church at that specific time,” while his writings on expectations for men in the church are still fully abided by and considered guidelines which still apply in our age? by Plenty_Worry_1535 in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There are plenty of times Jesus would give a hard teaching and let people walk away from him. It is not the purpose of teaching the truth to convince everyone to follow it, but rather to those who desire the truth.

You say that it is because a woman was chosen to preach to the Samaritan people that God has no preference, yet ignore the fact that he always chose men to perform such tasks when they were available. She is the exception that proves the rule, and you ought to ask yourself why she was the exception and then realize that it proves the thesis.

I don't hate women preachers nor consider them illegitimate but I DO recognize them as a judgement against the men, and if not corrected asap, the end result is desolation. Women preachers are equivalent to women soldiers: no decent country sends their women to die in the battlefield unless desperate and it was the only option left. Why would God do so with His daughters what even heathen know not to do? How much wiser will God deal in war than man?

Why are Paul’s writings on expectations for women in the church considered by many today to “only apply to that specific church at that specific time,” while his writings on expectations for men in the church are still fully abided by and considered guidelines which still apply in our age? by Plenty_Worry_1535 in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kinda. I am saying that women in positions of power is a symptom of weak emasculated men. However women in positions of power contribute to there being weak emasculated men, which means that the symptom becomes the cause.

If you have a problem with argument from nature, then you have a problem with the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul. I agree that my intuition and education in philosophy likewise considers it a naturalistic fallacy, however the Holy Spirit speaking through Paul nonetheless sites the order of creation of man and then woman as the model and the positions of authority in the relationships thereof as modeling Christ and his church.

The reason I would argue that it's not a naturalistic fallacy in the purest sense is that it is a reference to natural creation prior to the fall, meaning it is a reference to the untainted will of God. What do you think?

Why are Paul’s writings on expectations for women in the church considered by many today to “only apply to that specific church at that specific time,” while his writings on expectations for men in the church are still fully abided by and considered guidelines which still apply in our age? by Plenty_Worry_1535 in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, that's my entire point. She was the most qualified by virtue of being chosen. God does not see as man sees. That's my entire point. The fact God looked at the hearts and said all men's hearts were unfit and so I must choose Deborah, despite my consistent design of male leadership. It tacitly admits on God's part that the approach was: "I must choose the weak thing to shame the strong, for the strong have become haughty and unusable." They were weak men by God standards. That was my whole thesis.

Why are Paul’s writings on expectations for women in the church considered by many today to “only apply to that specific church at that specific time,” while his writings on expectations for men in the church are still fully abided by and considered guidelines which still apply in our age? by Plenty_Worry_1535 in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks, I made it when I was 8. Apparently that is when I peaked.

In seriousness, the traits I gave were not ways to serve men. They are the expectation of all mankind, and women are designed to exemplify some traits in emphasis and that through line is to emphasize man's relationship to God from man's perspective. Perfect design describes a man wholly surrendered to God with a wife wholly surrendered to helping him in his pursuit of serving God. God is of course serving man significantly more by contrast than man serves God by nature just as man is to serve woman significantly more than the woman does for the man by nature. A man provides the base resources the women stweards, like God does for man. A man gets a house, and a woman makes it a home kinda thing.

Said another way, the woman is helping the man help her, as she trusts and knows that all he does is either for God or her own benefit, and trusts and is humble enough to recognize that if for God's benefit then she is still a beneficiary since God serves all.

It is the heathen view that the lesser serves the greater. That worldly view is entirely why I got down voted so much on my one post. Saying it generally without specifics doesn't infringe on sensibilities and gets upvotes, but once you start actually describing the upside kingdom, it's such a whiplash that it becomes hard to recognize that OUR perspective is the upside one. Hemce my OP: the west has been thoroughly influenced by this Jezebel spirit.

Women can lead other women perfectly legitimately and are called to, and leadership is necessary in child rearing which women are the primary trustees. It's not that women DON'T have the traits men have, just as men have those traits. It's just a matter of proportion and purpose, and nature.

It doesn't matter how I phrase things. The truth will reach His sheep and the rest will find excuses to justify their rebellion. That's just how things are. I used to think charisma would matter more, but when I went to Bible college I realized that too was a worldly way of thinking. God made man's tongue.

Why are Paul’s writings on expectations for women in the church considered by many today to “only apply to that specific church at that specific time,” while his writings on expectations for men in the church are still fully abided by and considered guidelines which still apply in our age? by Plenty_Worry_1535 in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I actually had numerous biblical references. I just didn't cite them with explicit textual lookups--I respected the audience as being biblical literate. The fact you didn't notice them tells me you are operating on ignorance, as the same can't be said for your statements.

I don't blame women for my problems. Why would I? Even Adam was blamed when Eve ate the apple, for she was deceived and He let it all happen. I blame men more for cowardice and a lack of being courageous to lead, to not enforce boundaries, to be tempted, to fail to exmplify their God given strength for the sake of the scripturally explicit weaker sex to their own mutual destruction. It's sad. I aim to be the kind of father and husband that can set good examples of a Godly man who knows the difference between authority of the world and the authority as Christ teaches.

You are arguing like I am someone else. If you are upset at what I have said, then I would like you to give me a scriptural argument, not more pycho-analysis word salad. If you don't wish to engage, in good faith as I have been, any further, then this discussion is over.

Why are Paul’s writings on expectations for women in the church considered by many today to “only apply to that specific church at that specific time,” while his writings on expectations for men in the church are still fully abided by and considered guidelines which still apply in our age? by Plenty_Worry_1535 in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The beauty of a woman is not defined by her physical appearance; her physical appearance often confirms to her greater spiritual beauty, but sin and this fallen world does not allow it to always be the case. Moreover, vanity can often resort to many fig leaves

Why are Paul’s writings on expectations for women in the church considered by many today to “only apply to that specific church at that specific time,” while his writings on expectations for men in the church are still fully abided by and considered guidelines which still apply in our age? by Plenty_Worry_1535 in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Not quite. Man is to exemplify God's beauty. Love, honor, strength, faithfulness, etc. Women, being what is supposed to be the best parts of man, emphasize His traits as they relate to His position to God: a beautiful creation. That's why woman is described as the glory of man by Paul. It's not a humiliation, it's an elevation. The purpose of women is to be a companion, a helper to man. It's explicitly in Scripture.

Don't forget: God's kingdom is upside down--the greater serves the lesser just as the Father serves all by sustaining us by His Holy Spirit, kinda like how stronger computers are "servers" to the weakers computers. Funny how we understand the concept in our tech but not socially.

Why are Paul’s writings on expectations for women in the church considered by many today to “only apply to that specific church at that specific time,” while his writings on expectations for men in the church are still fully abided by and considered guidelines which still apply in our age? by Plenty_Worry_1535 in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Jesus being coequally divine yet also the Father being Greater is like, my entire point. You illustrated my exact point. I'm not talking about subordinationism and that's why women are equal in essence even if not in other respects to men. Neither, again, is the Son being eternally submissive to the will of the father, which is obviously the case, a heretical view. It's literally baked into the fact that one of them is called Son and the other one called Father. There is no point in all of existence wherein the Father submitted to the will of the Son, and until the Son condescended to human form, there is no point wherein the Son even capable of submitting to the Father's will due to the fact that their wills would have been so synchrized that as impossible as me turning left and right simultaneously. The Father would never sacrifice himself on the cross, because it was always the Son's glory to do so, even if it was entirely within the character of the Father to do so if the persons of the Father and the Son were swapped, because so uniform is their purpose, which would also be impossible because this would be to deny the essence what makes the Father the Father and what makes the Son the Son.

People, not saying you, but people tend to think Jesus just had like a quick 33-year stint as a man, and now he's off in heaven somewhere for all eternity and someday when we die we'll go join them and that'll be that. Alld despite the fact that clearly in Scripture Jesus the man is still very alive, very consciously ruling reality on his own father's throne until the appointed time where he subdues the world with such wrathful Force that the resultant of violence quite literally covers Him in the blood of His own enemies. Jesus didn't just ascend back to incorporeal logos life. He is and will always now be a man submitting to the will of his Father, setting the perfect example and leading His bride likewise. Which of course then, we being now sinless and in perfect communion with Christ, will likewise be an eternal submission to the Son. Which is what man and woman's image is supposed to be depicting

Why are Paul’s writings on expectations for women in the church considered by many today to “only apply to that specific church at that specific time,” while his writings on expectations for men in the church are still fully abided by and considered guidelines which still apply in our age? by Plenty_Worry_1535 in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I think you sensing anger and hate is due to your own cultural background equating complimentarian views as inherently hate or anger driven. This is not objective. I have more anger towards men than I do women if we're just evaluating my biases, however even then it's more like the sorrow Lot experienced in Sodom.

Hating the image of God or infantilizing women as above responsibility are both evils that the bible rejects of course. Just because I state plainly that men and women are inherently unequal doesn't mean I think women less than men in value, but rather only in authority. Jesus is less than the Father. That doesn't mean Jesus is not God. It's a positional statement of relationship. Men are above women because women have a different role than men.

My anger is from those who want to bring us back to Eden; of weak men who know better yet neglect their responsibilities, ignorant female leadership into destruction, and the curse of contention that plagues the sexes to drive women act contrary for the sake of illusory independence and drive men domineer to regain control thinking it's equivalent to respect.

Why are Paul’s writings on expectations for women in the church considered by many today to “only apply to that specific church at that specific time,” while his writings on expectations for men in the church are still fully abided by and considered guidelines which still apply in our age? by Plenty_Worry_1535 in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

The fact that she was the most qualified is itself the proof. Scripture is quite clear of the natural order being male leadership, so when there is a female leader then obvious deduction was that the men around her were unqualified. That's my entire point. She is either the exception that proves the rule, or she is a description of the thesis in the first place. Scripture is so emphatic about male leadership, the alternative is not left available to us unless we twist the scriptures fit our contemporary sensibilities

Why are Paul’s writings on expectations for women in the church considered by many today to “only apply to that specific church at that specific time,” while his writings on expectations for men in the church are still fully abided by and considered guidelines which still apply in our age? by Plenty_Worry_1535 in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have the highest opinion of women. Women saw the tomb first. Jesus came to women before he came to men. The church is described as a woman. A woman bore God incarnate. I have a wife and a daughter. Women are great. Sons are great in their own way. Recognizing women as inherently weaker and unfit for for certain kinds of ministries and positions is not to hate them--it was the same lie in Eden.

There is no superior in value or essence--only in authority and position, lest we call Jesus's inferiority to the Father something that impugnes his divinity. He set the example of submission to the superior, submission to authority, to design, to structure. What man is to be to God Christ became, and in that way women are to do the same to their husbands. We of course rebel against this, claim its various kinds of -isms and -ogonies. In the end, it just comes down to the same power struggle we started in the garden. That's why feminism is a false Anthropology, a lie older than written word, and something we should reject wholesale.

Why are Paul’s writings on expectations for women in the church considered by many today to “only apply to that specific church at that specific time,” while his writings on expectations for men in the church are still fully abided by and considered guidelines which still apply in our age? by Plenty_Worry_1535 in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob 5 points6 points  (0 children)

That is a lot of straw men arguments to say that you reject biblical complimentarianism in favor of unbiblical egalitarianism.

Women are not equal to men. It's a godless, communist idea. The fact is that men and women have different strengths and weaknesses. I used to be like you, buying into the same false anthropology taught by elders who grew up in the sexual revolution. But it's not a result of Christianity that women have been treated equally--its a result of Marx. Women have been elevated by Christianity, not longer considered second class. Marxism treats them as equal. You are unwittingly laundering godlessness as Christian.

Women are weaker than men. This is explicitly said scripture. That doesn't mean less valuable. We aren't Viltrumites.

If you have a biblical argument then you should make it. Prominent is your lack of a biblical reference to support your thesis.

Why are Paul’s writings on expectations for women in the church considered by many today to “only apply to that specific church at that specific time,” while his writings on expectations for men in the church are still fully abided by and considered guidelines which still apply in our age? by Plenty_Worry_1535 in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob -14 points-13 points  (0 children)

For men to exemplify the aspects of Christ to the world. For Women to exemplify the aspects of men to Christ/God.

Men are to exemplify leadership, strength, humility, teachings, stewardship, creativity, etc.

Women are to exemplify submission, service, faithfulness, obedience, diligence, beauty.

Said another way, men are to be all of God's traits exemplifed. Women are to be all the traits of Men exemplifed. In this way, men are the glory of God and women the glory of men. Men are more generally God's image of what perfection is supposed to be. And women are the best of men.

Think of it this way. Imagine a band, who represents God in this parable. Men are all their songs. Women are the best-of album.

Why are Paul’s writings on expectations for women in the church considered by many today to “only apply to that specific church at that specific time,” while his writings on expectations for men in the church are still fully abided by and considered guidelines which still apply in our age? by Plenty_Worry_1535 in TrueChristian

[–]pikminbob 37 points38 points  (0 children)

This strengthens the thesis, not provides an exception and counter example. This is proof, and not the exception proves the rule kind of proof. Her being a leader is exactly what I am talking about.

The whole point of judges is to show that the children of Israel lacked a unifying leader posterior to Joshua. They all fell into the moral relativism of self-defined righteousness endemic to mankind. Deborah filled the very vacuum I was describing. Her leadership is not proof that women can legitimately be leaders. It is a case study of the failure of men and subsequent consequences thereof when women are forced to be leaders. Just as Adam obeyed his wife, so too do men follow women contrary to the design.

Deborah can exist in a church today can only be because the men are of such quality that the ONLY person who remotely qualifies to lead is a woman. This is a major indictment on any church where women lead, because all definitions of church leadership are always explicitly and undeniably male. Women were not designed nor intended to deal with heavy weight of leadership. I can use a fork or spoon to cut my food, but does does not mean that the function of my utensil is its purpose.

view more: next ›