Bible Talk

By :)

March 25, 2008 11:35 PM | Link to this

I have to say, that women allowed to teach and preach is perfectly fine in the church to me. Women play a crucial role and can sometimes approach a situation with more gentleness than a man might, and we all need that at times… of course that’s one quality I have noticed but there are many more. I have to be honest, although I am not against it, I don’t think I am comfortable with a women leading as senior Pastor while a man acts as “first lady” LOL! I can’t even tell you why I feel that way, maybe I am nurtured that way by my environment and I can’t help it. Society teaches that women have a place and a role to play and they should stick to it. I guess as long as a women can still play the role of a Pastor, while not forfieting the time that a wife should put into being a wife, and likewise for a husband, then maybe its ok. I drive through Houston, or any bigger city and see billboards with women Pastors advertising all the time, and I look and say, hmmm… I guess I am not used to it. This is my opinion here: Recently, very popular women of God like Paula White and Juanita Bynum, have recently been through some horrific times with their marriages. Paula White is getting divorced (she was senior pastor in Tampa for “A Church without Walls”) and Juanita Bynum was being beaten in the parking lot by her Pastor husband. I know these may be random acts and don’t apply to every women Pastor but what I am saying is that if a woman accept that type of calling to lead in the way these women have, they should think about remaining unmarried. The effort that goes into being a wife will burden a woman, as well as being a husband. Junaita Bynum I felt should have not married, like i felt when I heard she was getting married, at least at that time. I was a big fan but it seems that the message I used to recieve from her had changed and I didn’t feel she was as attentative to what God was saying like she used to be. She now has come out and openly confessed that it was not her time to do so and will try to move on by helping other woman in teh same situtaion. God had a calling on her life and she may have walked away a bit when she got married, which allowed our enemy to attack, but she will make the best of this, as she has stated already. We all have turned away from God’s leading at one time or another. That’s how I feel… woman also should understand that God has designed men to feel a need to lead a family, and by having a wife as lead Pastor, may take away from that, not saying that it is ok to feel that way about everything. As far as the church booting the seminary teacher, that is wrong and I would never agree with that. Woman should teach, preach and help in any capacity. I won’t post scriptures that support this because I do believe that woman were very much so allowed to teach and be discipled by Christ Pastor Joe stated. But, something to think about.

:)

By Drew

March 26, 2008 9:21 AM | Link to this

What’s your definition of disciple? Many view that a disciple, within the context of the New Testament referred to any follower of Christ. Now, if by disciple you really meant Apostle, its pretty clear that only men held that post at that time. But I don’t want to even contemplate whether pastors today act in an apostolic role… I’ll leave that for more knowledgeable people than me.

What about Paul’s conditional considerations for Elders and Deacons?

I don’t think that the point of your question is as clearly stated as it could be. I think you can ask the question better by asking whether Paul’s commandments in his letters were situational and limited by time and place or whether they are commandments that stand the test of time and universal (w/in the context of the church) is something over which we can discuss this.

Personally, given the context of these commandments and the various other portions that talk about Christ and his church compares it to a husband and wife, that it appears to me that Paul meant that these commands are not limited to the time and space of a specific 1st century congregation but the church body throughout history.

Now having said all that, I don’t have a problem with women exercising roles in full time ministry, I’m just not sure that for the role of Senior pastor (similar to the role played by 1st and 2nd century bishops “episkopos”) that it is Biblical for a church to call a woman to that position.

Or maybe I’m just defining your question too narrowly.

Happy Wednesday…

By Jeff

March 26, 2008 11:57 AM | Link to this

Our pastor had preached on this last year and I was actually amazed by the response that Christian women had to his teachings. Oddly enough, they didn’t agree with him that women should be leaders of congregations. You would think with the prominence of secular views in the church that it would be the opposite, but it didn’t go that way. One said that if God ordained an order than who are we to tell Him he’s wrong. (There are roughly 5000+ women in our Southern CA church, which means that the local views definitely predispose them against Biblical views in the first place.) Please read this for what it says, not as a male chauvenistic viewpoint.

By Fred

March 27, 2008 5:08 AM | Link to this

Women should have been running the churches from the start (1st Century AD). Afterall; Mary M. was Jesus’ wife you know.

By cantw82leave

March 27, 2008 10:48 AM | Link to this

I am no longer a victim of Christian mythology and its nefarious subterfuge of the masses (and especially of women); I hardly see how this discussion warrants appearance in a NEWS paper, but I have learned that the Christian preoccupation with world domination is worming its way into the mainstream. Since it is apparently an argument dear to the Christian heart, much like ostracizing homosexuals and joyfully hearkening the “end times”, I am going to submit some core tenets of my belief system just to remind the local community that Christianity doesn’t have an exclusive on spirituality. To respond to the question of “…anyone attend a church with a woman teacher or pastor?”. I follow a spiritual path that recognizes the female embodiment in deity itself, (I can hear the shocked gasps even now). Your discussion of “allowing” women to preach is not just shocking, it is offensive. To submit as Mr. Smiley face did ( :) ) that women ‘can participate as long as they do not neglect their duties to husband, house and home’ is antediluvian, not to mention nauseating. Do you really believe that??? Maybe if you took the gag off of your wife long enough to let her speak you might find that some women do not subscirbe to your tenet that “society teaches that women have a role to play and we should stick to it” ?! (And just for the record, sir, no, “society” does NOT teach that, but your antiquated woman-fearing theology does! Good luck with your hell-fire and brimstone…caveman.) The KJV is rife with terms like “allowed”, “permitted”, and (my personal favorite) “suffered” in context to women. Do women really still have to ask permission to exist in the Christian belief system? And even more shocking, do some women still feel so powerless that they embrace this belief system??

A female led belief system that recognizes the embodiment of the feminine in its deity is markedly different from a monotheistic male dominated spirituality. Women are celebrated and recognized for their contributions, their strengths, their intelligence and leadership. Just as the male aspect is celebrated for his contributions, strengths, intelligence and leadership. It is a level playing field that recognizes that one aspect (male/female) does not have unlimited control over the other, in either the spiritual or daily life. “What scripture do I base my beliefs on?” This statement seems to erroneously assume that there is only one source for “scripture” (I will leave that topic for future arguments). I do not base my spirituality on doctrine, scripture (as in the KJV), or any edict that attempts to control, demean or otherwise subvert another. My belief system allows me to be a strong, intelligent woman capable of making decisions for myself and my family equally as well as my spouse. It allows me to base my relationship with my partner on mutual respect and emotional fulfillment instead of playing a role or being dutiful (read submissive). I find your discussion of whether or not to allow women to “teach, guide, mentor, preach” or whatever term you choose for it absolutely ludicrous. I am thankful to my belief system that I do not have to engage in such an archaic argument and that I can move forward to service my community, my family and my nation in the best possible way.

By Fred

March 27, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this

I was once in a Unity Church and a woman who was about to pray said: “Let’s all bow our heads and pray to our Heavenly Mother…”. I sort of liked it. It was a plesant change; a Feminine aspect of God. Yes; I rather liked the idea.

By cantw82leave

March 27, 2008 5:22 PM | Link to this

Yay Fred! You are a true gentleman and a scholar.

By KDF

March 27, 2008 6:07 PM | Link to this

For cantw82leave. Good evening. I am sorry that you are angry…I truly am.

You will be in my wife’s and my prayers.

<><

By Obadiah Sheeply, Jr

March 27, 2008 6:55 PM | Link to this

Right on, cantw82leave. KDF, no need to pray for us. We don’t believe in the “power of prayer.” There is no evidence whatsoever that it does any good. And please, no anecdotes. Controlled studies only, please. If the prayers of 6 million Holocaust victims went unheard, I think we can safely assume that that cinches the deal on “the power of prayer.”

I have a suggestion: to show whether “they should be allowed to teach” in the local churches, how about all female Sunday school teachers go on strike in the hidebound denominations which consider women unworthy of even this modest amount of respect? I predict that the powers that be will come crawling and begging asking them back.

By GJ

March 27, 2008 7:39 PM | Link to this

Don’t let them beat you down, cantw82leave. You are not the only ex-Christian in the area, but it’s easy to feel that way. And ignore their condescending ways. When we disagree and point out the fallacies in their thinking, we are called “angry.” On the power of prayer, as I asked once before, “Why does God refuse to heal amputees?”.

By KDF

March 27, 2008 8:24 PM | Link to this

Firstly, I mostly agree with the Pastor. Women have played a pivetal(?) role in Christianity, and a reading of both the New and Old testaments affirm this. Many times women were high and above men in their discipleship and their attitudes. That is one of women’s beauty that God created. Jesus actually showed that women were among God’s greatest followers.

GJ, for the amputee discussion, please go to Barnes and Noble and read “Jesus”, chapter 9 on healing. It’s a new book by Charles Swindoll. It may or may not answer your question. And God does answer prayers with “yes, no, or not yet.”

…according to His will, not mine. <><

By GJ

March 27, 2008 8:54 PM | Link to this

KDF - I have some books you may like to read as well. Try Sam Harris’s “Letter to a Christian Nation.” But please just don’t read it at B&N - that would be stealing! :)

The answer to all amputees requests to be healed has been “no”. Why? It seems like God is picking on them.

By :)

March 27, 2008 10:31 PM | Link to this

Fred: You know I hear you sometimes on your opinions and respect them but, come on, your just against anything that contradicts what we Christians believe. “Mary was Jesus’s wife?” Come on, there is no proof to that and it appears anything that takes away from the diety of Christ, you would support. Your just liberal just to be liberal and really take no consideration to what othrs may think. I think woman should preach to but your just saying that to try to stir us up. Anyone that is a partial or anti-christian as you can not be taken seriously if your not willing to compromise a bit. Even I admit when we Christians are wrong it that’s a lot.

By Jeff

March 27, 2008 10:44 PM | Link to this

Obadiah Sheeply, Jr, it is very interesting that you will bring the scientific approach to this as an argument against Christianity. How many fossils have been found that support Darwinism? Does archaelogy support or disprove Biblical accounts of history? Why is the Bible significantly different than other religious texts? Are there really any facts that support counter Christian claims such as The Da Vinci code? Why didn’t anyone claim that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead until almost a century later? Why would rulers of the Babylonian Empire and Roman Empire give up absolute, god-like power to follow the God of the Bible? Lastly, why would anyone cowtow to another who argues with lies, deceit, anger, and opinion? Controlled studies only please!

By Joe Dan

March 27, 2008 10:56 PM | Link to this

1 Timothy 2:8-15 and 1 Timothy 3:1-13 are only some of the scriptures that lay out the structure of men’s and women’s role in the church. If anyone refuses to agree or comply with them then you turn your back on God the Father and our Savior Jesus Christ. The Bible isn’t up for editing or abridgement. It is what it is and means what it says. If any of us attempts to include or exclude any part of it to our own likening then we mislead the unsaved and create havoc and contention in the church. We become Satan’s best weapons. God made the choices for men to lead and teach the church for His own good reasons and what qualifies any of us to attempt to change or edit any of them. Follow His word or risk condemnation.

By :)

March 27, 2008 11:09 PM | Link to this

cantw82leave: Well, we appreciate your articulation on what we “Christians” believe. Its obvious your eduacted and an intelligent woman and it appears that you have found some identity in being a independent woman that needs no God or no man to help fulfil her role in society. I commend you for that. However, your assumption that I have a “gag” in my wifes mouth is seriously mistaken and do understand that my partnership and lifetime commitment with her is co-dependent and I in no way feel I dominate our marrisge unfairly. Also, I am in no way against woman teaching, and it is obsurd that you think it is wrong for a woman to fulfill duties as a wife and mother. I am a man and she is a woman. There are many things that I cannot do, as in explain certain things to my daughter, that she may be able to do better. Also, my wife is not ordered around like a marine in bootcamp in my home. She recieves joy catering to me, just like I do when I cater to her. She is allowed to express herself in any way and disagree with me in any way that she feels neccesary. She is not bare-foot and pregnant and she is a very eduacted woman. If you read what I said carefully then you would also know that I did not say a woman can participate only if she does not neglect her duties. I said if a woman decides to lead a church (as a Senior Pastor) it may interfere with some of the things that woman, not men nor me, like to do such as, spend time with their children, with their husbdan, etc… I never said what you anything differently.
As for you, your obviously angry and not a happy woman, I don’t care what you say. You despise woman that love to do for their husbands, and you want woman to think just like you. As far as most woman in society believing like you do HA! Your a small majority and only surround yourself around people that feel like you do being your not happy. Most woman I am sure do want the respect they deserve but your a lot more radical than the women I know and even woman that share different religious beliefs from me, would disagree… I don’t know where you get your statistics. Who p** you off or done you wrong??? I know church people did and I am sure some college professor that hated men brainwashed you to hate any man that opposes your beliefs. I hope you find what your looking for in life. What are you talking about when you say “the embodiment of the feminine in its deity.” Do you really think your a God??? That you femininity is divine in its nature alone, apart from God himself? You really think woman will believe this message your professing? Come on! I realize that your belief system does not come from a bible, and that’s ok, really. But where does it come from, you never told us. Margaret Sanger??? Last, you commented on this blog and that you don’t have to engage in this “archaic argument”…well I can’t tell you sure did write enough. This blog is in no doubt an open forum and your welcomed to state your opinion. But we don’t really accpect someo like you to even understand the question. The Pastor was never disagreeing with woman teaching, preaching ,etc… He was clearly addressing a serious problem amongst some churches to not allow woman a bigger role in their churches. People like you think your better than everyone and if that’s so, you can take your enlighten self to a country where faith has died, and secular humanism is supreme. I will pack your bags!!! oh I forgot, your husband will pack them for you because you would never “submit” you don’t do that kinda of thing.

(I know this was rude but she called me a caveman, lol!)

:)

By Fred

March 28, 2008 4:54 AM | Link to this

For those of you who are Slam-Dunking the obvious Steel Magnolia cantw82leave; consider nature. In nature the lioness hunts for and rules the pride. The she-wolf (up in Canada) rules and leads the wolf pack. It’s been medically proven that women (in general) can endure more phyical pain than men (child birth you know) and women live longer than men. Truly, the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that Rules the World.

By Fred

March 28, 2008 5:06 AM | Link to this

Oh, and I almost forgot. When Jesus died on the Cross where were the men (the Disciples)? The male Disciples were hiding from the Romans. It was the women who stood by Jesus at the foot of the cross. It was the women who took Jesus down from the Cross and buried Jesus in the tomb. And who was the first human being that Jesus revealed Himself to after He rose from the dead? Yes, a woman…..Mary M.

By :)

March 28, 2008 9:43 AM | Link to this

Fred: Ok I undertand, and no one here that I can tell is taking anything away from women. I believe just what the Declaration of Independence says. That “all men (humakind) are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” (Thomas Jefferson). Feminist should not hate Crhistianity just because there are some very ignorant ministers and pastors that fill women should not teach, like the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. I had a friend from work that went their and left because of their narrow-minded theological beliefs and traditions of male superiority.

By cantw82leave

March 28, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

Mr :)…. Please accept my sincerest apologies for referring to you as a “caveman”. It was unwarranted and without tact or respect, I truly am sorry. I am however intrigued to note that in your rebuttal you were clear to initially point out how much your wife enjoys catering to you, then (was that an afterthought?) that you also reciprocate the gesture. Just an observation. To those who felt I was in some way unhappy or p** off. I apologize for giving you that impression, I am in fact a very happy, fulfilled woman who is proud of herself and her family. I am also proud of the fact that I can think independently and do not need to be told what to think, feel or believe. I took 10 years of my life to research Christianity and for those of you who maintain that there is no evidence to support “counter christian claims” or the “Jesus married to Mary Magdalene” theory then I submit to you that there is a plethora of evidence to support those claims. It is in print, local legend and history. It comes down to what you CHOOSE to believe.
According to Jewish law at the beginning of the first century, Jesus Christ, as a Jewish male, would have been all but required to be married. Dare I mention the wedding at Canaa and let you draw your own conclusions? Could there be a reason the description of the wedding at Canaa seems so vague? The Holy Bible could not possibly be a document that has been amended, abridged, edited and constructed over the last 2000 years could it? Anyone ever read about the Council of Nicea? If you cannot bring yourself to read Baigent, Lincoln and Leigh, then try Gardner, Picknett or Gadon (some of which may now be out of print and only available used).
I always find it fascinating that for a monotheistic belief system, Christianity seems to be plagued by dual personalities. On the one hand, we have the Christian who uses the bible to find solace, comfort, guidance and strength. The source of unconditional love for their fellow man. I commend this and have the utmost respect for it. If this is your choice, and what gives you strength, then walk in peace my friend. On the other side of the coin, we have the fanatical tyrant who insists that there is only one way, one path to true salvation (which is often defined in a nutshell as material reward for good behavior, as in, do as we say, and you will get pearly gates, starry crowns and golden streets). If the cattle do not willingly load into the cattle car, then there is always manipulation, coercion and isolation in the form of threats (If you don’t believe our way you will rot in hell), passive coercion (oh, we’re so sorry you don’t believe our way; we’ll pray for you)and my personal favorite, murder. Anyone remember studying a little point in history called the Inquisition?? Do your research. There is plenty of information out there that refutes the belief system as it has been used for the last two thousand years. I personally choose not to participate in a tradition that tells me I am a sinner, I am somehow not worthy and that I should spend a lifetime begging on my knees. Seems like a good way to control the masses doesn’t it? As for embodying the feminine in deity, it’s not so unheard of. Prior to the rise of the monotheistic male dominated Christianity of today, nearly every spiritual tradtion from Egypt to Ireland recognized the embodiment of both the male and female aspects in their deities. Yes they were polytheistic, and I can hear the fanatics now shouting “those don’t count because there is only one true God”. Ok, if you CHOOSE to believe that, then we live in a free country and you are free to choose. But by your own belief system you are willing to put away generations of souls simply because they were born at the wrong time? What happened to that unconditional love from a few lines ago? History shows that many societies that are believed to have been matriarchal in nature were quite peaceful; how’s the peace thing working for us today? Why does it seem so offensive to some that a god could just as well be a goddess? For that matter why is it so offensive to some of you that some of us simply do not subscribe to the Christian belief system but we can still be good people? And no Mr. :), I didn’t even know who Margaret Sanger was until you mentioned her, wow, she was a courageous, brave woman who I would have been proud to know. Thanks for the tip.
And thanks to my fellow supporters, it’s good to know I’m not alone.

By Joe Dan

March 28, 2008 4:34 PM | Link to this

I read the comments on this issue with concern. Philosophical sentiment and assumption, based on research of fragmented records, is great for discussion but it seems that all involved here have missed the point. We have been given God’s word and we must use it to manage our churches. None of the comments here mention any of those instructions. The Bible is replete with instances of women helpers, deaconesses and converts. Those scriptures should be studied and used as guidelines. Those men, just as we men of today, couldn’t have done it all alone. I can’t believe that our merciful Father ever meant that our precious mothers, sisters and wives were meant to be treated as second rate citizens in our churches. God forbid. On the same note I don’t think He meant for the ladies to use what some consider a lack of importance assigned in the scriptures as fuel for rebellion. We can’t stand as a body divided, in church, and conquer evil just as we can’t stand divided with our women in a successful marriage. The people who insist on adding fuel to this fire without first studying the Bible for fuel for resolution are the same group of people who take delight in the prospect of a divided church impotent to stand against the enemy. The same people described as “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” Amen

By Fred

March 28, 2008 8:08 PM | Link to this

Stop kidding yourselfs. History speaks loud and clear. The early Christians (including the Twelve) treated women like dirt. Mary Magdalene was made out to be a whore from the start. The early Roman Catholic Church had a lot to do with that grand lie. Early Christianity treated women like third class property. The writers of the Bible went out of their way to disrespect women. You narrow-minded Bible thumpers better hope that God is not a woman.

By Joe Dan

March 28, 2008 11:11 PM | Link to this

All we have to go on is the Bible. We can’t afford to have hundreds of peripheral churches spring up based on the dialog of television documentaries or “The Da Vinci Code.” That Bible is the only tool that has kept the churches as standardized as they are now, if you can call it that. The idea that women were treated like dirt is supposition without factual evidence based only on the opinions of disenchanted women’s libbers and hen-pecked husbands merely for the sake of drama, hate and discontent.

By Fred

March 29, 2008 3:58 AM | Link to this

Hey Joe Dan: The Bible is merely a fraction of the tip of the ice-berg of the reality of God (creator of the Cosmos). One can see God’s love in a flower or a beautiful sunset. If the Bible is your only source for God then you are limiting God within your own perception or your own minds-eye. God is more than the Bible or anyone’s perception of the Creator. Look within your own heart to find the Kingdom of God.

By cantw82leave

March 29, 2008 10:18 AM | Link to this

Fred: Well Said! I’ll try to keep this short. Joe Dan: To purport that “the idea that women were treated like dirt is suppostion w/o factual evidence” is preposterous. Have you ever read the Old Testament? The very concept that women were not allowed in the synagogues because they were deemed ‘unclean’ should give you an idea of how a woman’s worth was perceived in that society. And no, the Bible is not all you have to go on, there are plenty of other texts from the time period, and how about the Gnostic gospels? Once again, it is about choice and what you have been told to believe.

By Fred

March 29, 2008 9:34 PM | Link to this

The Gnostic gospel of Mary should be required reading by anyone proclaiming Christianity as truth. Mary….the most beloved Disciple.

By :)

March 30, 2008 12:28 AM | Link to this

Margaret Sanger was a racist who exploited African American leaders and ministers with her “Negor Projects” (read about it) and created birth control for that purpose. Just so you people reading this blog know that cant82wleave feels she “was a courageous, brave woman who I would have been proud to know,” read a few quotes so that you know this woman that appears very intelligent, won’t lead anyone astary:

“We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” Margaret Sanger’s December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon’s Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.” Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

“The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

If you can still tell me you like this woman, then you are sincerely lost.

As far as your “researching” Christianity, well, I would have to say that your research from its beginning would not be totally non-partial. It’s one thing to approach a study of something totally objectively but I can’t belive you did that. I feel safe to assume that your “research” on “Christianity” was to disprove its primary tenets so you could articulate and debate us believers, rather than trying to find some truth in it. If you did, it appears that you are a person that didn’t either like or accept what the bible or the gospel had to say and found a belief system that suited you better or even justified your behaviors. You can call it a “duel personality” or whatever, but we do believe there is seperation from God if you don’t accept that Jesus was God and in that belief alone, not “good behavior”, is the way we enter eternal life with Him. As far as murder, what are you implying??? Are you associating us with and holding us accountable for past crusades, persecutions lead by the Catholic Church, the war in Iraq, etc… with tyrants that wrongfully used Christianity as justification for wars and killings? So would you say that we agree with Hitler too? Not all Crhistians believe that war and violence is justified (I’m one of them). That’s not fair and I challenge you not right us all off for other persons faults. I wish you would give it a chance and find God personally, not through religion, churches, people, etc.. but for yourself, really I do. I will tell you what I already told someone else here and please think about this. If what the bible and oratorical history tells us is not true, then when I die, I go into the ground and rot. But if what it say’s is true, then you will have to spend eternity away from God in a place that is referred to as hell. That’s too big of a risk to take. You decide.

By GJ

March 30, 2008 9:57 AM | Link to this

:) - What if Islam is right? What is Mormonism is right? What if any other religion is right? What if “God” wants us to think for ourselves and be able to reject the lies of man-made religion? What if you are wrong? For many of us the “evidence” you give is very poor. I want no part of your vengeful deity.

So, you want us to devote out lives to something just in case it’s right. That’s not very persuasive.

By :)

March 30, 2008 1:13 PM | Link to this

No I don’t, actually I do believe what I believe because of genuine faith and love for God. I am not on this blog to persuade you anyway… and I know that it will take much more than what I say to convince you of anything. Also, that was not an attempt to give you evidence for what we believe. The blog did not say “Give evidence for what you believe.” It was about woman teaching and preaching. So, say what you want. This debate is a dead horse with you guys so believe what you want.

By Jeff

March 31, 2008 12:17 AM | Link to this

GJ, you got it! All religions are fundamentally different. They can’t all be right. Now, what claims do facts support? The Bible is not really that mystical in its approach. It meticulously lays out details to challenge you to disprove it. There’s no “hocus pocus” going on, except with the counter claims, such as Darwinism, other religions, and atheism. Every one of those has facts, but is not entirely fact. That’s the definition of a “good lie.” The difference is, if the Bible was disprovable, it definitely would have been done by now. But, for … and giggles, try it. Skeptics who actually look for answers have written some of the best reads about Jesus!

By Joe Dan

March 31, 2008 10:44 PM | Link to this

cantw82leave and Fred’s opinion would have merit if it weren’t for the fact that the Bible doesn’t say, “take the Gnostic gospel of Mary and run your life.” And by the way, nowhere in the Bible is Mary Magdalene assigned the honor of being a disciple or an apostle. The Bible tells to use the scriptures therein and learn, teach and assimilate them into our lives. It doesn’t say, “choose what we want.” I’m aware of the Gnostic gospels and they make great study material for theological research. But they weren’t admitted to the Bible. I also don’t see any discrimination in the Gnostic gospel of Mary not being canonized. There was and still are some questions as to it’s authenticity. The books of Ruth and Ester were admitted so I have to assume that gender wasn’t a qualifier. Some may question the authority of those who made the decision of what books to canonize and which ones to reject. If we can’t believe that God’s hand was in the decision making process then we might be setting ourselves up for failure. The very premise of using the Bible as the one source of instruction was to bring us all together as a family, all using the same information to achieve similar goals. Some of the posts on this topic validate the argument of everyone using their own opinion, Gnostic gospels, Farmers’ Almanac or whatever else we can throw in to run our lives. The context of the posts are all over the place to include trying to validate Islam. Very dangerous. And just think of how confusing all this could be to an unsaved individual or a new Christian? I don’t pretend to be the resident expert, far from it. I’m just an old country boy who loves Jesus and to tell you the truth it worries me to even think about straying from the Bible. cantw82leave says it’s about choice and what we’ve been told to believe. Well, I’ve read the Bible several times over. There are a few things in there that I’d rather not adhere to because it’s against the nature of a flesh and blood man. Sometimes its very difficult to forgive some people. But, the choices are made for me, by scripture, and I’ve been told, by scripture, what to believe. I fail many, many times but all I know to do is confess it and keep praying. I do a lot of confessing, trust me. I guess I don’t know what else to say. I hope nobody takes any of this personally. None of it is meant to be. God bless us all.

By :)

April 1, 2008 1:05 AM | Link to this

cantw82leave, you still think Margaret Sanger is a great women??? LOL! Are you willing to sell out and support a racist because of her strong beliefs in femininity?

By Fred

April 1, 2008 7:00 PM | Link to this

Hey Joe Dan: Don’t be so narrow-minded. There are many paths to God. Consider the five major religions as the five fingers of God. Now Joe Dan; you’re going to be rather surprised when you get to Heaven if you find the Buddha shooting a friendly game of pool with Jesus? I’ll bet you two Saint Peters and a Saint John that Jesus wins that game of pool. You see, the Buddha would have no DESIRE to win the game. We should never limit God to our own personal beliefs. God is much bigger than what we could possibly believe about Him (or Her).

By Jeff

April 1, 2008 8:57 PM | Link to this

Fred, You completely ignore the fact that if God was the same god of all these religions, than he’s a lunatic not worth following. Fundamentally, all these religions don’t agree and Buddhism doesn’t actually lead to any god. Just google Christianity vs. Islam, Buddhism, etc. You will see that they can not agree. Because Christianity is not your choice doesn’t mean that you are safe with any others.

By Joe Dan

April 2, 2008 9:10 PM | Link to this

Fred, if I see Buddha in heaven I’ll know one thing for sure and that’s that he has accepted Jesus Christ as his savior. That’s the only way he’ll ever make it there. Buddha does not offer a path to God. That’s what the enemy would have you to believe in order to perpetrate the great lie that you don’t need Jesus in your life. If being a Christian means, to you or anyone else, that I’m narrow minded then I guess I am, in your opinion that is. I prefer to call it narrow visioned. I’m going to keep my eyes on Jesus and refuse to believe that some pagan deity will get me into heaven. I hope you come to your senses and accept Jesus too. You’re the people we’re commissioned to pray for. God isn’t limited to my personal beliefs, I have His word as a standard. I make too many mistakes to rely on my own beliefs. By the way, God is always referred to as a male, and our Father, in His word. Keep the faith.

By :)

April 2, 2008 10:09 PM | Link to this

Fred: You already said the “shooting pool with Jesus” line already. You are so wrong, and Satan’s greatest vistory is not a belief in him but any belief that denies Christ is our saviour. If he can get you to follow anything that denies that the Christian God is the only way, then he has done his job. Your life may seem great and every challenge that comes up, appears to be nothing more than mind over matter with you. Have you ever considered why life is so peaceful? Maybe because Satan has no need to bother with you. He see’s that your lost already and your no threat to his work. It’s Christian’s that he worries about. I know this is not a very deep argument like I usually post but, you need to think about the things your saying. There is only one saviour, that’s Jesus Christ and no other.

By Joe Dan

April 21, 2008 10:37 PM | Link to this

I got off track during this exchange and forgot the original question presented by Brother Carabajal. And the answer is NO. Thanks for the debate and God Bless.

By Ozland

July 27, 2008 3:27 AM | Link to this

I was rather concerned by the mention of cantw82leave about the wedding feast at Cana, and the assumption that it must have been the wedding of Jesus. As :) so accurately puts it, Satan’s greatest victory is to believe in anything that makes us doubt Christ as our saviour. He plants seeds of doubts and waits for them to grow in those lacking in faith. Jesus did not marry - it is fundamentally against Christianity that he did. He is the Messiah, which means that He can do whatever He pleases in doing the will of God. To say that He married is to say that He is not the Messiah. If this is the case, His disciples would have known, and they would not voluntarily die such violent deaths in preaching His word.

The wedding feast may have been that of a member of the community (which it would have natural for Jesus’ mother to attend), or, possibly even that of a half-brother or half-sister (i.e., a child of Mary and Joseph). How many people choose in order to try to discredit the Bible rather than believing! There were other disciples who did not marry, namely Paul, who himself stated this at several points throughout his writing, so to say that the law “required” Him to marry is another fallacy, one initiated and propagated by people led by Satan. How sad it will be for any one of those people at the time of judgement!

I read that cantw82leave studied Christianity for 10 years. Obviously you have studied the words but have never gotten to know the love of Christ and the compassion of the Holy Spirit. I know the Holy Spirit, the great comforter. He is a powerful, powerful being, that the world rejects (as the Bible says), but that does not make Him any less potent when the time is right. For your own sake, cantw82leave, please come to know God. You can find true peace in your heart that will take away your need to criticise what you do not understand. As for referring to God as female, I have to ask by what authority you question the word of His Son, Jesus Christ, who is the embodiment of God? If His Son calls Him Father, then how dare we call Him anything else. We can only call Him what those inspired by God in His Word have referred to Him as, nothing more and nothing less.

Oh, and finally, before you criticise me for being another believer of male dominance and the suppression of women, let me tell you that both my wife and I hold Ph.D. degrees and respect each other deeply. It was my wife who brought me to faith, and I thank God for her every day of my life.