Observation: According to the Southern Baptists Sarah Palin cannot preach and must submit gracefully to the will of man.
Yet this same group will likely be instrumental in electing her as our veep.
Inconsistent?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
I believe that's the Iraqi/Muslim mindset...
and I believe Obama has the Muslim background..
just put a bag over her head
and they'll be happy
and I believe Obama has the Muslim background..
just put a bag over her head
and they'll be happy
Can someone tell me why an intelligent, common-sensical, middle class, successful, accomplished woman is not qualified to be Vice President, or even President?
I could throw a dart at the names of we posters, and likely come up with a better President than we've had in a long time.
DF
I could throw a dart at the names of we posters, and likely come up with a better President than we've had in a long time.
DF
quote:I believe that's the Iraqi/Muslim mindset...
No, that is the official stance of the Southern Baptist Convention, Monet.
Which also begs the question: When she and the First Dude reach the white house, are the Baptists going insist that Todd make all the hard decisions since he is the head of the house?
Mind boggler.
quote:Originally posted by DeepFat:
Can someone tell me why an intelligent, common-sensical, middle class, successful, accomplished woman is not qualified to be Vice President, or even President?
DF
I can't think of a single reason. Why, do you know of any who might be interested?
Which also begs the question: When she and the First Dude reach the white house, are the Baptists going insist that Todd make all the hard decisions since he is the head of the house?[/QUOTE]
I believe that they mean she should sumbit to the "will of her husband" and not just "the man". And the decisions would be about "their home" and not her job - the presidency - if she ever got that far. I guess it would have been okay for Hillary and Bill though I thought the Methodists believed the Bible too and it is plainly in the Word for the wife to submit to her "own" husband.
I believe that they mean she should sumbit to the "will of her husband" and not just "the man". And the decisions would be about "their home" and not her job - the presidency - if she ever got that far. I guess it would have been okay for Hillary and Bill though I thought the Methodists believed the Bible too and it is plainly in the Word for the wife to submit to her "own" husband.
maybe Palin is submitting to her own husband...could be he approves of her running for V.P. 
I ain't voting for that hockey mom but any man with any intelligence knows a woman owns half the stuff and all the - p..ower and the baptist preacher with his creepy combover or duckbill hairstyle knows it too.
Werewolf!
Where wolf?
DF
Where wolf?
DF
What hump?
Da** your eyes!
They already are!
They already are!
quote:Originally posted by skeptic:
Observation: According to the Southern Baptists Sarah Palin cannot preach and must submit gracefully to the will of man.
Yet this same group will likely be instrumental in electing her as our veep.
Inconsistent?
According to Mr. Bill, a woman can teach, but not preach.
So all is good, and Todd does approve of her running for VP, so I guess she got 'permission'.
Hi LMM,
Skeptic told us, "Observation: According to the Southern Baptists Sarah Palin cannot preach and must submit gracefully to the will of man. Yet this same group will likely be instrumental in electing her as our veep. Inconsistent?"
And, you responded, "According to Mr. Bill, a woman can teach, but not preach. So all is good, and Todd does approve of her running for VP, so I guess she got 'permission'."
Well, I do believe that both of you are confusing two separate Biblical teachings: (1) the Biblical relationship of a husband and wife, and (2) that a woman should not be a pastor.
I am not Southern Baptist; but, let's look at what the Bible teaches us about the relationship of a husband and a wife. In Ephesians 5:22-24, we are taught, "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything."
What is this telling us? Wives, as Christian believers, you are subject, i.e., give respect, to the Lord -- give the same respect to your Christian husband.
But, you ask, "What if the husband is not a Christian?"
I am glad you asked. In 1 Peter 3:1-2, we read, "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior."
It would seem that Christian women are admonished to still be submissive to your husband; even if he is not a believer -- for by your Christian, respectful behavior -- you might win him to the Lord.
Then, in Ephesians 5:25-27, we find, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless."
Jesus Christ died for the church, the body of believers. He loved her so much that He gave His life for her. Husbands, you should love your wife with that same intensity, that same fervor.
And, in Ephesians 5:28-30, we are told, "So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body."
Christian husband, if you love your wife this much, as Jesus loves the church -- her submissiveness will not be a weakness -- but, will instead, make both of you stronger -- for you will have a strong marriage relationship.
Now, to the second issue: should a woman be pastor of a church? No.
In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul teaches, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."
What does this mean? It means that, in spiritual leadership, in spiritual matters -- the woman is not to exercise authority over man -- and is to be under the spiritual leadership of the man.
Why is this? For several reasons; but, first, the local church is an organization. An organization must have a leader, a head. God has decided this should be the man; just as man is designated by God to be the spiritual leader in his home.
Does this mean that women in a church cannot teach? No, absolutely not. Some of our best Bible study leaders are women. Yet, when matters of spiritual leadership in a church are involved -- the man, the pastor, is the one to do this teaching.
There is another reason that women are not to be pastors. If we go back to Genesis, Adam was created first; then Eve. Adam was head over Eve; just as Christ is head of the Christian church. Just as a pastor is ultimately responsible for what happens in his church; Adam was responsible for Eve's actions. So, when Eve allowed Satan to tempt her into disobeying God; she was not the one held responsible -- Adam was. You never read in the Bible of Eve's fall; you never hear a pastor or Bible teacher talking about Eve's fall. No, it was Adam's fall which brought sin upon mankind -- for Adam was the person responsible.
In our sins, we all are responsible, we all are accountable -- but, in this case, the burden fell upon the shoulders of Adam. History buffs will recall that President Harry Truman had a placard sitting on his desk which read, "The Buck Stops Here!" Truman knew that whatever happened, whatever decisions had to be made -- the responsibility fell upon him -- just as the responsibility for the fall was upon Adam.
God established a hierarchy: the church with Jesus Christ as head; the family with man as spiritual head; and the local church with the pastor, a man, as the spiritual head. To do any differently is to thumb your nose at God. And, I certainly do not want that on my record.
Now, let's go back to Skeptic's original statement: "Observation: According to the Southern Baptists Sarah Palin cannot preach and must submit gracefully to the will of man. Yet this same group will likely be instrumental in electing her as our veep. Inconsistent?"
This is a typical Liberal spin on facts. Yes, the Southern Baptist, as well as all other conservative Baptists, and many other Christian churches -- do hold to the Biblical teaching that Sarah Palin cannot be a pastor -- for she cannot be a spiritual leader over men. However, that does not preclude her from being a business leader nor a political leader over men. The two are totally separate and different.
But, by the same token -- this does not say that, when Sarah Palin becomes our Vice President, and later when she becomes our President -- that she cannot use her Christian leadership to bring Christian influence into government. I am quite positive that God will be standing up and shouting, "You go, girl!"
LMM, I pray this answers your questions and puts the Liberal Secular spin, which Skeptic tried to slip in on us, to bed.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Skeptic told us, "Observation: According to the Southern Baptists Sarah Palin cannot preach and must submit gracefully to the will of man. Yet this same group will likely be instrumental in electing her as our veep. Inconsistent?"
And, you responded, "According to Mr. Bill, a woman can teach, but not preach. So all is good, and Todd does approve of her running for VP, so I guess she got 'permission'."
Well, I do believe that both of you are confusing two separate Biblical teachings: (1) the Biblical relationship of a husband and wife, and (2) that a woman should not be a pastor.
I am not Southern Baptist; but, let's look at what the Bible teaches us about the relationship of a husband and a wife. In Ephesians 5:22-24, we are taught, "Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything."
What is this telling us? Wives, as Christian believers, you are subject, i.e., give respect, to the Lord -- give the same respect to your Christian husband.
But, you ask, "What if the husband is not a Christian?"
I am glad you asked. In 1 Peter 3:1-2, we read, "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior."
It would seem that Christian women are admonished to still be submissive to your husband; even if he is not a believer -- for by your Christian, respectful behavior -- you might win him to the Lord.
Then, in Ephesians 5:25-27, we find, "Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless."
Jesus Christ died for the church, the body of believers. He loved her so much that He gave His life for her. Husbands, you should love your wife with that same intensity, that same fervor.
And, in Ephesians 5:28-30, we are told, "So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of His body."
Christian husband, if you love your wife this much, as Jesus loves the church -- her submissiveness will not be a weakness -- but, will instead, make both of you stronger -- for you will have a strong marriage relationship.
Now, to the second issue: should a woman be pastor of a church? No.
In 1 Timothy 2:12, Paul teaches, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet."
What does this mean? It means that, in spiritual leadership, in spiritual matters -- the woman is not to exercise authority over man -- and is to be under the spiritual leadership of the man.
Why is this? For several reasons; but, first, the local church is an organization. An organization must have a leader, a head. God has decided this should be the man; just as man is designated by God to be the spiritual leader in his home.
Does this mean that women in a church cannot teach? No, absolutely not. Some of our best Bible study leaders are women. Yet, when matters of spiritual leadership in a church are involved -- the man, the pastor, is the one to do this teaching.
There is another reason that women are not to be pastors. If we go back to Genesis, Adam was created first; then Eve. Adam was head over Eve; just as Christ is head of the Christian church. Just as a pastor is ultimately responsible for what happens in his church; Adam was responsible for Eve's actions. So, when Eve allowed Satan to tempt her into disobeying God; she was not the one held responsible -- Adam was. You never read in the Bible of Eve's fall; you never hear a pastor or Bible teacher talking about Eve's fall. No, it was Adam's fall which brought sin upon mankind -- for Adam was the person responsible.
In our sins, we all are responsible, we all are accountable -- but, in this case, the burden fell upon the shoulders of Adam. History buffs will recall that President Harry Truman had a placard sitting on his desk which read, "The Buck Stops Here!" Truman knew that whatever happened, whatever decisions had to be made -- the responsibility fell upon him -- just as the responsibility for the fall was upon Adam.
God established a hierarchy: the church with Jesus Christ as head; the family with man as spiritual head; and the local church with the pastor, a man, as the spiritual head. To do any differently is to thumb your nose at God. And, I certainly do not want that on my record.
Now, let's go back to Skeptic's original statement: "Observation: According to the Southern Baptists Sarah Palin cannot preach and must submit gracefully to the will of man. Yet this same group will likely be instrumental in electing her as our veep. Inconsistent?"
This is a typical Liberal spin on facts. Yes, the Southern Baptist, as well as all other conservative Baptists, and many other Christian churches -- do hold to the Biblical teaching that Sarah Palin cannot be a pastor -- for she cannot be a spiritual leader over men. However, that does not preclude her from being a business leader nor a political leader over men. The two are totally separate and different.
But, by the same token -- this does not say that, when Sarah Palin becomes our Vice President, and later when she becomes our President -- that she cannot use her Christian leadership to bring Christian influence into government. I am quite positive that God will be standing up and shouting, "You go, girl!"
LMM, I pray this answers your questions and puts the Liberal Secular spin, which Skeptic tried to slip in on us, to bed.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
Paul was a mysoginist and so is anybody who believes a woman doesn't have the sames rights as a man.
Any woman who converts to Billism after that tirade is a self-loathing loser.
DF
DF
Hi Mr./Ms. Eye,
You tell us, "Paul was a mysoginist and so is anybody who believes a woman doesn't have the sames rights as a man."
And, your mentor, Deep, jumps in with another quote right out of his Atheist's Cutesy Comments Manual, "Any woman who converts to Billism after that tirade is a self-loathing loser. DF"
First, I have to say to the ladies on the Forum who are Christians, "Is Deep right that you are a self-loathing loser?"
Personally, I know you are not. But, obviously Deep believes that because you believe in and follow Jesus Christ -- you are a self-loathing loser. Hmmm.
Now, to Eye's comment about the apostle Paul, my first thought is that you should not be shooting the messenger -- until you know who sent him -- and who gave him the message. You see, Paul, like all other Biblical leaders, were only conveying the messages given to them by God. God is Paul's boss. So you are saying that God is a misogynist.
Let me see. Wikipedia tells us this about misogyny:
Misogyny is hatred (or contempt) of women. Misogyny is parallel to misandry — the hatred of men. Misogyny is also comparable with misanthropy, which is the hatred of humanity generally.
Ask yourself this: If God hates all women -- why did He create the man AND THE WOMAN in HIS image? Does that make sense? God is creating a man and a woman in HIS image; He is creating them so that He may have fellowship with them. Yet, He hates the woman? Duh!
Lets jump forward from Adam and Eve about 4000 years -- to a fellow named Jesus Christ. I am quite certain He did not hate women because He always included them in His ministry; He often put the woman first before the man -- such as the first person to visit His tomb and find it empty -- was a woman. The first person to see Him after His resurrection -- was a woman.
Now, does this seem to you that God and Jesus Christ were misogynist, that they hated women? It sure does not to me.
However, God did set certain guidelines for His church and for Christian families: Man would be the spiritual leader; but, he would not be considered higher nor better than woman -- just that each was given different responsibilities.
So, no, Deep -- Christian women are not self-loathing losers.
And, no, Eye -- God is not a misogynist.
Eye, it appears you may be a prodigy of our Friends, Deep and Fish. Are you part of the Religion of Nothing they have been attempting to bring to Forumland? Maybe it is time I reposted the tale of "Nothing Comes To Forumland" again.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
You tell us, "Paul was a mysoginist and so is anybody who believes a woman doesn't have the sames rights as a man."
And, your mentor, Deep, jumps in with another quote right out of his Atheist's Cutesy Comments Manual, "Any woman who converts to Billism after that tirade is a self-loathing loser. DF"
First, I have to say to the ladies on the Forum who are Christians, "Is Deep right that you are a self-loathing loser?"
Personally, I know you are not. But, obviously Deep believes that because you believe in and follow Jesus Christ -- you are a self-loathing loser. Hmmm.
Now, to Eye's comment about the apostle Paul, my first thought is that you should not be shooting the messenger -- until you know who sent him -- and who gave him the message. You see, Paul, like all other Biblical leaders, were only conveying the messages given to them by God. God is Paul's boss. So you are saying that God is a misogynist.
Let me see. Wikipedia tells us this about misogyny:
Misogyny is hatred (or contempt) of women. Misogyny is parallel to misandry — the hatred of men. Misogyny is also comparable with misanthropy, which is the hatred of humanity generally.
Ask yourself this: If God hates all women -- why did He create the man AND THE WOMAN in HIS image? Does that make sense? God is creating a man and a woman in HIS image; He is creating them so that He may have fellowship with them. Yet, He hates the woman? Duh!
Lets jump forward from Adam and Eve about 4000 years -- to a fellow named Jesus Christ. I am quite certain He did not hate women because He always included them in His ministry; He often put the woman first before the man -- such as the first person to visit His tomb and find it empty -- was a woman. The first person to see Him after His resurrection -- was a woman.
Now, does this seem to you that God and Jesus Christ were misogynist, that they hated women? It sure does not to me.
However, God did set certain guidelines for His church and for Christian families: Man would be the spiritual leader; but, he would not be considered higher nor better than woman -- just that each was given different responsibilities.
So, no, Deep -- Christian women are not self-loathing losers.
And, no, Eye -- God is not a misogynist.
Eye, it appears you may be a prodigy of our Friends, Deep and Fish. Are you part of the Religion of Nothing they have been attempting to bring to Forumland? Maybe it is time I reposted the tale of "Nothing Comes To Forumland" again.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:Southern Baptist, as well as all other conservative Baptists (...) do hold to the Biblical teaching that Sarah Palin cannot be a pastor -- for she cannot be a spiritual leader over men. However, that does not preclude her from being a business leader nor a political leader over men. The two are totally separate and different.
I fail to see how you separate the two. One one hand, you wrote a book detailing how women have "permission" to do everything a man can do.
They can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, commit our troops bring forth death and destruction to our enemies and hold authority over more men than any woman in history ever has. Why, she can even raise postage rates.
But you draw the line at Sarah Palin standing behind a pulpit and preaching the word of God.
Bill, you can't prove to me without a doubt God was speaking through Paul. Paul was a mysoginist and I bet God was highly embarrassed by some of the things attributed to him in your book men wrote.
Mr. Bill, wasn't the leaders of the church of Phillipi two women?
Cheeze and crackers, Bill.
You'd rather lie when the truth is easier.
I said women followers of "Billism" are self-loathing losers, not christian women.
However, you are making a strong point for me, again. Thanks. The desert-god religions of the Levant don't seem to have much use for women, do they?
Men are the spiritual leaders of the house? What a load of Billoney. What about a single-mother household? Are they left to drift?
What about a home where the family is religious but the father is not?
What about seeing women as human beings of equal value and worth?
The historical and ongoing oppression of women is a fine reason to disregard Middle Eastern religions, among many others.
DF
You'd rather lie when the truth is easier.
I said women followers of "Billism" are self-loathing losers, not christian women.
However, you are making a strong point for me, again. Thanks. The desert-god religions of the Levant don't seem to have much use for women, do they?
Men are the spiritual leaders of the house? What a load of Billoney. What about a single-mother household? Are they left to drift?
What about a home where the family is religious but the father is not?
What about seeing women as human beings of equal value and worth?
The historical and ongoing oppression of women is a fine reason to disregard Middle Eastern religions, among many others.
DF
All good questions, Deepfat.
They all highlight one of the (in my opinion) most disturbing aspects of fundamentalism: The fact that they are universally inconstant in the very foundations of their own "deeply held" beliefs.
Mr, Gray, for example, seems unable to make up his mind on abortion or same sex marriage. Both are absolutely wrong (according to Bill) except when presented with situations where they clearly are not.
Is this considered "inconsistency" or is it a shade of dishonesty?
They all highlight one of the (in my opinion) most disturbing aspects of fundamentalism: The fact that they are universally inconstant in the very foundations of their own "deeply held" beliefs.
Mr, Gray, for example, seems unable to make up his mind on abortion or same sex marriage. Both are absolutely wrong (according to Bill) except when presented with situations where they clearly are not.
Is this considered "inconsistency" or is it a shade of dishonesty?
I think a good word for it would be convenience Skeptic.
quote:I think a good word for it would be convenience Skeptic.
Or perhaps "Abby."
Abby Normal!
Ixnay on the ottenray.
DF
DF
quote:Originally posted by skeptic:quote:Southern Baptist, as well as all other conservative Baptists (...) do hold to the Biblical teaching that Sarah Palin cannot be a pastor -- for she cannot be a spiritual leader over men. However, that does not preclude her from being a business leader nor a political leader over men. The two are totally separate and different.
You can take it or leave it, but God ordained three instituions: Home, Church, State. If a man is present in the home, he leads. As for state, nothing is said about a woman not being able to lead there. As I said, take it or leave it.
As for the is Paul inspired question, remember it was Jesus himself who said that a person divorcing for reasons other than adultery and marrying again is commiting adultery.
I fail to see how you separate the two. One one hand, you wrote a book detailing how women have "permission" to do everything a man can do.
They can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, commit our troops bring forth death and destruction to our enemies and hold authority over more men than any woman in history ever has. Why, she can even raise postage rates.
But you draw the line at Sarah Palin standing behind a pulpit and preaching the word of God.
quote:As for state, nothing is said about a woman not being able to lead there.
Hello Fox,
No one said it did. Still, there is a glaring inconsistency that you are also unable to comprehend for some reason. Cognitive dissonance?
This point is clear: The Southern Baptists/Fundamentalist leaders loudly proclaim their support for Palin to be the supreme leader of the most powerful nation on earth. But once she is done with the presidency (in 8 to 12 years), she is barred from the pulpit - evidently under the rule of God Himself.
All her talk about pioneering women who shattered the glass ceiling and cleared her for the top job is simply bogus. That glass ceiling is still there. It's just above Sarah's very hot head.
Hi Skeptic,
In the earlier post, I wrote, "This is a typical Liberal spin on facts. Yes, the Southern Baptist, as well as all other conservative Baptists, and many other Christian churches -- do hold to the Biblical teaching that Sarah Palin cannot be a pastor -- for she cannot be a spiritual leader over men. However, that does not preclude her from being a business leader nor a political leader over men. The two are totally separate and different. "
And, you responded, "I fail to see how you separate the two. One one hand, you wrote a book detailing how women have "permission" to do everything a man can do. They can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, commit our troops bring forth death and destruction to our enemies and hold authority over more men than any woman in history ever has. Why, she can even raise postage rates. But you draw the line at Sarah Palin standing behind a pulpit and preaching the word of God."
Now, let's look at what you have written: "I fail to see how you separate the two."
My Friend, you are adamant in your erroneous belief that the First Amendment of our Constitution calls for "separation of church and state." Yet, now you question me, but more so, the Bible, when we adhere to your belief. Do you believe in "separation of church and state" or do you not believe in it?
Actually, I know that the concept of "separation of church and state" as the Liberals have spun it for so many years, is not true. Our founding fathers did not intend to have the state, i.e., our government void of Christian influence. What you, and your fellow Liberals, really are saying is that you want all Spiritual influence kept out of government -- and to allow only secular thinking in the bodies which govern our nation. My Friend, if we truly had a government that was, in fact, totally void of Christian Spiritual influence -- YOU would not want to live under that rule; YOU would not be happy living is such an America.
Next, you declare: "One one hand, you wrote a book detailing how women have "permission" to do everything a man can do. They can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, commit our troops bring forth death and destruction to our enemies and hold authority over more men than any woman in history ever has. Why, she can even raise postage rates."
Skeptic, my Friend, you need to get into the history of the Biblical times. In the Old Testament, God used women as leaders, as judges. In Judges 4, we read of Deborah, whom God made a judge over Israel. The people of Israel looked upon her as a leader and came to her for matters to be judged. Yet, she was not a Priest; she was not a spiritual leader.
When Israel was being threatened by Jabin's army; God appointed Barak to take the army of Israel against the enemy. However, Barak was afraid to lead the army of Israel in battle -- so, Deborah had to lead them into battle, where they were victorious.
As I was writing this -- a huge similarity struck me. Barak (Barack Obama?) was afraid to lead the army in battle -- so, Deborah (Sarah Palin?) had to lead them to victory. Do we see a pattern here? Could this be prophesy being played out before our eyes? Just a thought.
In the book of Esther, we see Ahasuerus, the king of Persia, taking an Jewish women, Esther, to be his queen. God placed Esther in the position of Queen -- for He was to use her to save her people, the Israelites, from the destruction plotted by Haman who was second in command to the king. God uses Esther to save her people; yet, she was not a Priest, she was not a spiritual leader.
In Acts 16, Lydia of Thyratira opened her home to be a home church. God used Lydia to help Paul build the church in her city; but, Paul was the spiritual leader.
In 1 Corinthians 16:19, we see that Priscilla and Aquila opened their home to be a church. In Romans 16:3, we see Paul introducing Priscilla and Aquila as co-workers in Christ Jesus. In Acts 18:24-28, we see that Prisicilla and Aquila, when they met Apollos, who was a gifted Scripture teacher and recognized that he was only teaching of the things of John the Baptist -- took Apollos aside and explained the Gospel of Jesus Christ more fully to him. From that time, Apollos was a powerful voice for the Gospel. Prisicilla and Aquila instructed Apollos -- but, Apollos was the spiritual leader.
In John 20, we see that Mary Magdalene was the first to discover that Jesus had resurrected (John 20:1-10). And, it was to Mary Magdalene that Jesus first appeared after His resurrection (John 20:11-18). Then, Jesus appeared to His apostles and over the next forty days, He appeared to over five hundred believers. Yet, it was to Mary that He first appeared.
But, you will notice also that He only appeared to believers -- for their spiritual eyes were open; they could spiritually understand the importance of His resurrection and later, His ascension into heaven. The spiritual eyes of non-believers are still in darkness; they cannot discern spiritual things. However, if you will become, by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, a believer and a follower of Jesus Christ -- you, too, will have your spiritual eyes opened, you will be made a new person in Christ Jesus -- and the Light will guide your life and your thinking.
So, no, Skeptic, God has in no way relegated woman to second class citizenship.
Finally, you ask, "But you draw the line at Sarah Palin standing behind a pulpit and preaching the word of God."
No, it is not Bill Gray who has said that Sarah Palin, or any other woman, cannot be a pastor. God said it. In the Bible. God, speaking through the writing of the apostle Paul, 1 Timothy 2:12, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." In this, God is speaking of spiritual authority; being a spiritual leader, i.e., a pastor.
Skeptic, I pray that I have answered your questions sufficiently. Most likely, you will not accept what I have written, for your eyes are still darkened by unbelief. However, for the thousands of other TimesDaily Forum readers; hopefully I have given you better insight into this issue.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
In the earlier post, I wrote, "This is a typical Liberal spin on facts. Yes, the Southern Baptist, as well as all other conservative Baptists, and many other Christian churches -- do hold to the Biblical teaching that Sarah Palin cannot be a pastor -- for she cannot be a spiritual leader over men. However, that does not preclude her from being a business leader nor a political leader over men. The two are totally separate and different. "
And, you responded, "I fail to see how you separate the two. One one hand, you wrote a book detailing how women have "permission" to do everything a man can do. They can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, commit our troops bring forth death and destruction to our enemies and hold authority over more men than any woman in history ever has. Why, she can even raise postage rates. But you draw the line at Sarah Palin standing behind a pulpit and preaching the word of God."
Now, let's look at what you have written: "I fail to see how you separate the two."
My Friend, you are adamant in your erroneous belief that the First Amendment of our Constitution calls for "separation of church and state." Yet, now you question me, but more so, the Bible, when we adhere to your belief. Do you believe in "separation of church and state" or do you not believe in it?
Actually, I know that the concept of "separation of church and state" as the Liberals have spun it for so many years, is not true. Our founding fathers did not intend to have the state, i.e., our government void of Christian influence. What you, and your fellow Liberals, really are saying is that you want all Spiritual influence kept out of government -- and to allow only secular thinking in the bodies which govern our nation. My Friend, if we truly had a government that was, in fact, totally void of Christian Spiritual influence -- YOU would not want to live under that rule; YOU would not be happy living is such an America.
Next, you declare: "One one hand, you wrote a book detailing how women have "permission" to do everything a man can do. They can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, commit our troops bring forth death and destruction to our enemies and hold authority over more men than any woman in history ever has. Why, she can even raise postage rates."
Skeptic, my Friend, you need to get into the history of the Biblical times. In the Old Testament, God used women as leaders, as judges. In Judges 4, we read of Deborah, whom God made a judge over Israel. The people of Israel looked upon her as a leader and came to her for matters to be judged. Yet, she was not a Priest; she was not a spiritual leader.
When Israel was being threatened by Jabin's army; God appointed Barak to take the army of Israel against the enemy. However, Barak was afraid to lead the army of Israel in battle -- so, Deborah had to lead them into battle, where they were victorious.
As I was writing this -- a huge similarity struck me. Barak (Barack Obama?) was afraid to lead the army in battle -- so, Deborah (Sarah Palin?) had to lead them to victory. Do we see a pattern here? Could this be prophesy being played out before our eyes? Just a thought.
In the book of Esther, we see Ahasuerus, the king of Persia, taking an Jewish women, Esther, to be his queen. God placed Esther in the position of Queen -- for He was to use her to save her people, the Israelites, from the destruction plotted by Haman who was second in command to the king. God uses Esther to save her people; yet, she was not a Priest, she was not a spiritual leader.
In Acts 16, Lydia of Thyratira opened her home to be a home church. God used Lydia to help Paul build the church in her city; but, Paul was the spiritual leader.
In 1 Corinthians 16:19, we see that Priscilla and Aquila opened their home to be a church. In Romans 16:3, we see Paul introducing Priscilla and Aquila as co-workers in Christ Jesus. In Acts 18:24-28, we see that Prisicilla and Aquila, when they met Apollos, who was a gifted Scripture teacher and recognized that he was only teaching of the things of John the Baptist -- took Apollos aside and explained the Gospel of Jesus Christ more fully to him. From that time, Apollos was a powerful voice for the Gospel. Prisicilla and Aquila instructed Apollos -- but, Apollos was the spiritual leader.
In John 20, we see that Mary Magdalene was the first to discover that Jesus had resurrected (John 20:1-10). And, it was to Mary Magdalene that Jesus first appeared after His resurrection (John 20:11-18). Then, Jesus appeared to His apostles and over the next forty days, He appeared to over five hundred believers. Yet, it was to Mary that He first appeared.
But, you will notice also that He only appeared to believers -- for their spiritual eyes were open; they could spiritually understand the importance of His resurrection and later, His ascension into heaven. The spiritual eyes of non-believers are still in darkness; they cannot discern spiritual things. However, if you will become, by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, a believer and a follower of Jesus Christ -- you, too, will have your spiritual eyes opened, you will be made a new person in Christ Jesus -- and the Light will guide your life and your thinking.
So, no, Skeptic, God has in no way relegated woman to second class citizenship.
Finally, you ask, "But you draw the line at Sarah Palin standing behind a pulpit and preaching the word of God."
No, it is not Bill Gray who has said that Sarah Palin, or any other woman, cannot be a pastor. God said it. In the Bible. God, speaking through the writing of the apostle Paul, 1 Timothy 2:12, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." In this, God is speaking of spiritual authority; being a spiritual leader, i.e., a pastor.
Skeptic, I pray that I have answered your questions sufficiently. Most likely, you will not accept what I have written, for your eyes are still darkened by unbelief. However, for the thousands of other TimesDaily Forum readers; hopefully I have given you better insight into this issue.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
Hi Skeptic,quote:Originally posted by skeptic: All good questions, Deepfat.
They all highlight one of the (in my opinion) most disturbing aspects of fundamentalism: The fact that they are universally inconstant in the very foundations of their own "deeply held" beliefs.
Mr. Gray, for example, seems unable to make up his mind on abortion or same sex marriage. Both are absolutely wrong (according to Bill) except when presented with situations where they clearly are not.
Is this considered "inconsistency" or is it a shade of dishonesty?
As usual, you try the Atheist's Spin on anything a Christian writes. So, for your mind, which is totally encapsulated in darkness, let me make my stance very clear:
I believe that Abortion and Same-Sex Marriage are always wrong. Period!
I will accept Abortion when the birth would endanger the life of the mother. However, this occurs in less than 1% of all abortions. Even if you add in incest and rape along with the mother's health -- this still represents less than 3% of all abortions.
So, of the 1.4 MILLION abortions we average in America EVERY YEAR -- that means that 1.38 MILLION of the Abortions are only for convenience, a form of birth control.
On the issue of Same-Sex Marriage -- it is ALWAYS WRONG. Period!
So, I pray that I have made my stance clear: Abortion is wrong -- but, if we can only eliminate the 1.38 MILLION abortions which are only an alternate method of birth control -- I will be happy. That is a good start.
Same-Sex Marriage is always wrong. There are no mitigating issues there -- it is always wrong.
However, knowing your secular, liberal, atheist mind -- I know that you and/or Deep will attempt to put an Atheist's Spin on this. But, at least, I have stated, with no shadows, my Conservative Christian stance.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:Originally posted by skeptic:quote:As for state, nothing is said about a woman not being able to lead there.
This point is clear: The Southern Baptists/Fundamentalist leaders loudly proclaim their support for Palin to be the supreme leader of the most powerful nation on earth. But once she is done with the presidency (in 8 to 12 years), she is barred from the pulpit - evidently under the rule of God Himself.
Hi Skeptic,
Once more you are mistaken. The Bible does not say that, after she has served in the White House, Sarah Palin cannot be a pastor.
The Bible tells us that Sarah Palin, or any other woman, cannot be a pastor -- before or after she serves as our national leader.
Your attempts at Atheist Spinning are way too transparent.
God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,
Bill
Attachments
Images (1)
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
Eye, it appears you may be a prodigy of our Friends, Deep and Fish.
I am actually their love child.
... Love child
Never meant to be...
Love child... digs reality...
Love child... better than the rest
Love child... Eye-gore is the besssssst
Yes, it's true... (s)he is our love child. I'm sure that explains the hump.
DF
Never meant to be...
Love child... digs reality...
Love child... better than the rest
Love child... Eye-gore is the besssssst
Yes, it's true... (s)he is our love child. I'm sure that explains the hump.
DF
He evolved in a most delightful way...LOL
Still got those bullfrog eyes!
quote:Originally posted by Bill Gray:
I am quite positive that God will be standing up and shouting, "You go, girl!"
Bill
WHAT???