|
Post by Jessi on Jul 16, 2006 18:38:56 GMT -5
Jessi, why do you pick/choose the verses from Timothy and Ephesians and not 1Cr 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law.It clearly states they are to keep silent and are not permitted to speak. There are so many verses, who could possibly think of them all? But the bottom line is, it says IN THE CHURCH. Which is during worship, teaching, and so on. Doesn't say anything about not being about to sing. YOU said women should not be able to sing. Doesn't say that. They are to be silent during worship IN THE CHURCH. They should not speak during the worship service, as we know it today. In the church. So, there should be no women preachers. That's what it says. Christ's, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 16, 2006 18:46:34 GMT -5
Who could possibly think of them all? Please--you have demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of scripture, time and again. Which is more plausible, that the verse I so closely paraphrased would have slipped your mind, or that you would deliberately neglect to mention it because it doesn't entirely support your contention?
It says all that--where? It looks to me like it says women should keep silent in the church and are not permitted to speak (where does it mention during worship or not during worship?). In any case, is singing not part of worship? Can you sing aloud and be silent at the same time? Is prayer not part of worship? Can you pray aloud and be silent at the same time? Where does it mention preachers, male or female? I don't see those words.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jul 16, 2006 18:46:44 GMT -5
. . . so we know that the 10 commandments are still in effect. This is the MORAL law. . . . Exodus 20:8 -- "Remember the Sabbath, to keep it holy...." One of the 10 commandments, which according to Jessi are still in effect. There are a few Christians who still keep the Sabbath -- Seventh Day Adventists come to mind. Not many others. <Sigh> So many claiming to be Christians, and yet violating such a simple commandment. No one could keep the commandments perfectly. When the rich young man told Jesus he had kept all the commandments from his youth . . . not possible. He couldn't have fulfilled the law perfectly. But he could not give up his things. That was the only thing Jesus required of him--because the law is summed up in LOVE (the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul strength). The rich man loved something more than God. His things. That separated him from God and kept him from eternal life. That one thing. Jesus is King, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jul 16, 2006 18:53:01 GMT -5
Who could possibly think of them all? Please--you have demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of scripture, time and again. Which is more plausible, that the verse I so closely paraphrased would have slipped your mind, or that you would deliberately neglect to mention it because it doesn't entirely support your contention? It says all that--where? It looks to me like it says women should keep silent in the church and are not permitted to speak (where does it mention during worship or not during worship?). In any case, is singing not part of worship? Can you sing aloud and be silent at the same time? Is prayer not part of worship? Can you pray aloud and be silent at the same time? Where does it mention preachers, male or female? I don't see those words. I would not fail to mention this verse on purpose. I just picked one. There is much to discuss about these verses. Running a little behind schedule. Encyclopedic? No. I just read the Bible and think of things and write them down. Sometimes, I even am so slow, I have to actually look them up and study stuff. I love to do this. Christ's Forever, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 16, 2006 19:34:26 GMT -5
And so does it not follow that if you were doing everything properly except keeping the Sabbath--that you just couldn't give up the freedom and leisure of your Saturdays because ultimately you love your free Saturdays more than God, not doing that one thing that he requires (remember, the moral law is still in effect) would keep you from eternal life?
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jul 16, 2006 21:08:55 GMT -5
for anyone who has witnessed the love care and affection that can exist between homosexual couples, it is a surprise, and disconcertingly odd to find out that the first reason, and sometimes only reason brought against homosexuality is that God said it was wrong. This lack of support should raise all kinds of red flags to begin with.
Oh, you hear other reasons, but they always seem to be after the above, pretty much as we've seen here.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jul 16, 2006 22:15:19 GMT -5
guest: The experience and emotions of man are secondary to the moral law of Holy God. That the LORD GOD has said is a pretty good reason for me to obey his law.
mrleo: One cannot lose eternal life once he has it (Phil 1:6, Jn 10:28-30). The rich young ruler was never saved to begin with. His things were more important than eternal life to him and so he rejected eternal life. It was never his.
Rom 14:5 (ESV) – One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord.
If one is doing something and knows it’s not right and does it anyway, he sins, because whatever does not proceed from faith is a sin (Rom 14:23). If he doesn’t know it’s a sin, he will, because if he has the Holy Spirit, He will convict him.
The moral law is still in effect. Here’s the catch. There’s no way that man can follow it on his own. He will fail. If he fails in one point, he fails the WHOLE law (Ja 2:10). Without Christ, I can do nothing (Jn 15:5).
He enables me to fulfill the moral law of God. If I falter in a point of the law, God corrects my failure because those he loves, he punishes (Rev 3:19) and I lose nothing but gain understanding. I am righteous in the eyes of God because of the blood of Christ. Does that mean I can do whatever I want? No. Because he who abides in Christ departs iniquity (II Tim 2:19). Works follow faith James 2:18.
I John 2:5 Whoever says “I know Him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him.: whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
Christ's Forever, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by guest on Jul 16, 2006 22:56:00 GMT -5
guest: The experience and emotions of man are secondary to the moral law of Holy God. That the LORD GOD has said is a pretty good reason for me to obey his law. Christ's Forever, Jessi Of course what you believe God has said is just your personal interpretation and belief. That can have little to do with the moral law of Holy God.
|
|
|
Post by mrleo unplugged on Jul 16, 2006 23:21:29 GMT -5
I realize I didn't state it outright, but my hypothetical situation assumes that the person in question is saved--but they don't observe the Sabbath on Saturday and are not convinced that it should be observed on Saturday; rather, they firmly believe that Sunday worship alone is sufficient even though they know that it used to be the tradition to observe it on Saturday, but think that it's a Jewish tradition that ended with the New Covenant. It seems you're saying it's inconceivable that someone who is saved would not eventually be convicted that the Sabbath should be observed on Saturday, because that is the moral law and the Holy Spirit would unmistakably show him his error. Is that an accurate assessment?
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jul 17, 2006 5:32:13 GMT -5
Guest: How can you interpret Lev 18:22 any other way? Or Rom 1:26+? It says what it says. His Word will never pass away. If we love Him, we keep his commandments. We study His word to be approved by Him, rightly dividing the Word of truth.
Mrleo:
About 1 Cor 14:34 It’s hard to know what was really going on back then, why Paul said this. Maybe the women were being disruptive. It’s a common argument that he didn’t mean this or that. But rarely do I hear people argue that women shouldn’t make a sound. The evidence is just not there.
But in my church, you will not find a woman who would try to get up and speak during any PART of the worship service.
To keep silent clearly says to NOT SPEAK, not “can’t make a sound or a peep.” Does coughing count? That just seems over the top.
People of God are to sing psalms and hymns and praises to God. Women are not excluded from this activity. I think the singing would sound pretty funny with only men singing . . . at least in my church.
I Tim 2:12 This has even more information regarding what women shouldn’t do. Teaching and exercising authority over someone in church is preaching. She shouldn’t be a leader in a service over men. Women teaching men IN CHURCH is forbidden. The reason Paul gives is that Eve was led astray first and she led Adam also into deception.
Jesus is Lord, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by mrleo unplugged on Jul 17, 2006 7:28:23 GMT -5
I don't know, of course...you could be right. But to me, it seems pretty straightforward...to me, silence means silence... no speech, no vocalization. I can't imagine that a cough would not be excused. But I can certainly understand, if you enjoy singing and other parts of worship that require vocalization, that as a woman you would definitely want to interpret these verses to mean that women are allowed to do these things.
|
|
|
Post by Be fair on Jul 17, 2006 13:29:27 GMT -5
To keep silent clearly says to NOT SPEAK, not “can’t make a sound or a peep.” Not speaking would be a subset of keeping silent. Being silent i very clear. It means making no sound. So does killing someone for touching the arc to keep it from falling. That is somewhat selective. Hymns are often prayers set to music. Excluding women from praying aloud in church but letting them sing the prayer is somewhat arbitrary, based on human decision. So you go against the written word to make the singing sound nice? ? A far as men only - listen to Gregorian chants sometime. So who was the weaker person? The woman who was lead astray by the devil or the man who was lead astray by a mere mortal? That is irrational reasoning.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jul 17, 2006 15:51:38 GMT -5
I don't know, of course...you could be right. But to me, it seems pretty straightforward...to me, silence means silence... no speech, no vocalization. I can't imagine that a cough would not be excused. But I can certainly understand, if you enjoy singing and other parts of worship that require vocalization, that as a woman you would definitely want to interpret these verses to mean that women are allowed to do these things. I am not the only one who interprets this verse this way. I would say that you could not find a man or woman of the reformed faith who would disagree with me that a woman is allowed to sing in church! It isn't about whether I'm a woman or not. It's about what the Bible says -- for me. Why is this such a hurdle? What's YOUR agenda? Christ the Lord's Jessi
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 17, 2006 15:57:48 GMT -5
It's not a hurdle for me. I'm neither a Christian nor a woman.
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jul 17, 2006 16:04:07 GMT -5
So who was the weaker person? The woman who was lead astray by the devil or the man who was lead astray by a mere mortal? That is irrational reasoning.
I agree. That's iirrational reasoning. I Tim 2:12-14
Jesus is King, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Slowly on Jul 17, 2006 16:50:31 GMT -5
I am not the only one who interprets this verse this way. I would say that you could not find a man or woman of the reformed faith who would disagree with me that a woman is allowed to sing in church! It isn't about whether I'm a woman or not. You are not saying that whether something is right or wrong depends on the number of people who believe it are you? Having the majority determine issues of faith seems like a strange way to determine which are right and which are wrong. This is not entirely true. The bible says silence and you have decided that silent means not speaking but does not mean not singing. You are against a woman praying out loud during your church service. You are not against a woman praying out loud during your church service as long as the prayer is set to music. If a woman were to sing her sermon in a melodic voice would you let her? Or is it only singing that carries your imprimatur? You pick and choose to fit your own definitions. I have none. Just trying to sort out the inconsistent 'rules' you are presenting. If you don't want women taking part in your religious worship - fine. It is the twisting of random phrases in an attempt to justify it that seems wrong.
|
|
|
Post by bowhunter on Jul 17, 2006 16:56:42 GMT -5
Do a study on the verses that talk about women"praying with their heads uncovered",And women prohesying and praying during worship. It's a bit confusing but it is all there-women:praying,prophesying,ministering and simultaneously keeping silence
|
|
|
Post by Try hard on Jul 17, 2006 16:57:44 GMT -5
So who was the weaker person? The woman who was lead astray by the devil or the man who was lead astray by a mere mortal? That is irrational reasoning.I agree. That's iirrational reasoning. I Tim 2:12-14 Jesus is King, Jessi Could you try to explain this? The woman was essentially tempted by the devil, the most powerful evil spirit in existence. The man was tempted by another human. How is the woman's failure worse than the man's?
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jul 17, 2006 17:30:50 GMT -5
Dear Be Fair:
So does killing someone for touching the arc to keep it from falling.
You can't get over that Uzzah thing, can you (II Sam 6:3+)? That was a difficult one for me, too. The trauma of the recognition of Holy God makes one kick against what he perceives as injustice. It's all a part of God's redemptive plan.
Those who are His may be astonished and even hurt and traumatized by His Holiness (Isaiah and many others were - Is 6:1, Luke 5:8), but eventually, it will bother them so much, they will recognize their sin before Holy God and submit to His will--because HE will draw them . . . He is Merciful as well as Holy.
God said He will be holy and separate, and this guy, Uzzah, was taught from birth NEVER to touch the arc. He was a Levite. That was his job. To carry the ark by its poles. I think every once in a while, God makes an example to remind everyone that He is God.
Eve was told to NEVER eat from the tree and Israel was told NEVER worship idols and other gods. If I was there, I would have done the same thing they did. I am sinful man.
But Glory! The lessons learned from the Old Testament is that God is powerful and Holy and Just and Righteous and Good and merciful and compassionate . . . and Sovereign; The only one who can save, the ONLY Savior (Is 49:26, Acts 4:12).
Jesus is Lord, Savior, God Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jul 17, 2006 18:01:52 GMT -5
So who was the weaker person? The woman who was lead astray by the devil or the man who was lead astray by a mere mortal? That is irrational reasoning.I agree. That's iirrational reasoning. I Tim 2:12-14 Jesus is King, Jessi Could you try to explain this? The woman was essentially tempted by the devil, the most powerful evil spirit in existence. The man was tempted by another human. How is the woman's failure worse than the man's? I didn't write I Tim 2:12-14 . . . But it says what it says. I don't totally understand it. But Paul said the woman was the one who “was deceived and became a transgressor” and so I am thinking that means that she sinned first, so first violated Holy God’s commandment. However, Paul was chosen by the Lord as his mouthpiece and apostle. I submit to what he says. At any rate, the Bible does not say Eve TEMPTED Adam but GAVE him some fruit. There was no cajoling. He did not balk or hesitate. The Bible says, “and he ate.” According to Gen 3:6, he was WITH HER, apparently when or IMMEDIATELY after she was deceived. I believe that when one speaks in terms of rational and irrational when trying to exegete a verse, he is using man's wisdom. The natural man doesn't understand the things of God (I Cor 2:14). He won't submit to what the Bible says if it simply doesn't make sense to him. It is foolishness to him. Love in the Lord, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jul 17, 2006 18:38:36 GMT -5
Do a study on the verses that talk about women"praying with their heads uncovered",And women prohesying and praying during worship. It's a bit confusing but it is all there-women:praying,prophesying,ministering and simultaneously keeping silence Thanks for the clues. It would make a great study. I am content, though, that the two verses we were discussing, when placed side-by-side (and compared with others scriptures, like the ones you are talking about) tell me something important. A woman should not be a teacher of a congregation (preacher) because she shouldn't usurp authority over men. She should also be silent (not speak) during church and if she has questions, ask her husband at home. No preaching to men. No blurting out questions. I haven't seen a good argument yet that uses other scripture to refute . . . only what people think or "rational" or "irrational" . . . thoughts of man . . . striving over words. Only scripture will convince me. God's Word is the highest authority. Thanks again for all the . . . study ideas. Christ's Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jul 17, 2006 18:44:00 GMT -5
I realize I didn't state it outright, but my hypothetical situation assumes that the person in question is saved--but they don't observe the Sabbath on Saturday and are not convinced that it should be observed on Saturday; rather, they firmly believe that Sunday worship alone is sufficient even though they know that it used to be the tradition to observe it on Saturday, but think that it's a Jewish tradition that ended with the New Covenant. It seems you're saying it's inconceivable that someone who is saved would not eventually be convicted that the Sabbath should be observed on Saturday, because that is the moral law and the Holy Spirit would unmistakably show him his error. Is that an accurate assessment? Sorry mrleo. You're going to have to start over. I'm really slow. I just don't understand. You've confused me (easily done). I'm not sure anymore what I was assessing. Sorry. If you could try a more simple question . . . Christ's, Jessi
|
|
|
Post by Jessi on Jul 17, 2006 18:45:50 GMT -5
So who was the weaker person? The woman who was lead astray by the devil or the man who was lead astray by a mere mortal? That is irrational reasoning.I agree. That's iirrational reasoning. I Tim 2:12-14 Jesus is King, Jessi Hi ..... Jessi... let us think it over about women keep silence in the church. Are you saying ALL of the early church women couldn't speak, pray, teach, preach in the church? Do you mean the church BUILDING?
|
|
|
Post by mrleo on Jul 17, 2006 19:54:34 GMT -5
No apology necessary. Take a break and get back to it when you feel more rested and clear-headed.
|
|
|
Post by hawk on Jul 18, 2006 20:45:21 GMT -5
I don't know, of course...you could be right. But to me, it seems pretty straightforward...to me, silence means silence... no speech, no vocalization. I can't imagine that a cough would not be excused. But I can certainly understand, if you enjoy singing and other parts of worship that require vocalization, that as a woman you would definitely want to interpret these verses to mean that women are allowed to do these things. I am not the only one who interprets this verse this way. I would say that you could not find a man or woman of the reformed faith who would disagree with me that a woman is allowed to sing in church! It isn't about whether I'm a woman or not. It's about what the Bible says -- for me. Why is this such a hurdle? What's YOUR agenda? Christ the Lord's Jessi Aha! So you are talking about a reformed faith. It's about what the Bible says - - for you. Aha aha! So why are we talking about homosexuality? Clay - I knew you would notice. hahaha 'sme
|
|
|
Post by hawk on Jul 18, 2006 20:47:17 GMT -5
Hawk, I commend you for the courage it took to step forward as a Sensuous Christian. Clearly, Satan has you right where he wants you. Who's next? Thanks for the commendation. 'sme
|
|
|
Post by ClayRandall on Jul 18, 2006 21:44:05 GMT -5
Clay - I knew you would notice. hahaha 'sme I noticed nothing worthy of the description of funny, clever, or original.
|
|
|
Post by Zack Hood on Jul 19, 2006 16:10:44 GMT -5
As far as I am aware, Gene and his partner are "not" practicing homosexuals, but rather have a deep affection for one another, like close buddies, and thus have concluded they are gay because they prefer the close company of each other to those of the opposite sex. Therefore they see themselves firmly in the gay camp. Have we lost all sense of reason and our vision ? What's wrong with being very good pals with one another ?
Now if Gene had a desire for "Baer Botty," then that would transform the whole scenario ! However, I can now understand Gene's points of view influenced by feelings that he belongs to a certain persuasion, but really he does not meet the criteria of participation.
These two good chums are caught up in the confusion of the modern interpretations for gay and partner. Yes they are "gay" (happy, joyful) when in each other's company, and because of their close friendship are "partners" (friends, pals).
Now I can see why Gene thinks there is no wrong in their relationship.
|
|