Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by jaigner, Jan 4, 2012.
Good, thought-provoking scholarship from a solid egalitarian evangelical.
Check it out here.
I thought this was a debate forum.:thumbs:
An excellant article indeed. :godisgood:
Where is the debate? Who will be the first to put into their own words whatever is the point of the article and defend it or take exception to it?
Too bad his use of head as "source" has no scholarship behind it.
The article speaks for it self. Clearly articulated truth, directly from Gods scriptures.
When will the evangelical church EVER stop "drinking the Koolaide" regarding this issue and get with the program regarding the scriptural truth?
There is no Koolaid. Just the Word of God. We won't stop drinking from that wellspring.
This is one of the best things I've ever read on the subject. It's Biblically-based in the original meanings, and thus irrefutable.
The subjugation of women was done by a "good-ol'-boys" club, starting in the Catholic Church, to preserve male power and ego. Sad that many women have bought into this and support their own subjugation and denial of a calling that God may have for them.
Far from it and it's been easily refuted by many. I posted some links.
The following is a small excerpt from a very VERY lengthy artical from Christianity Today magazine. At the bottom is a link to the entirety of the artical.
Amen and amen.
How has it been easily refuted? All I saw in your links was the usual argument by the usual suspects. The only thing they did was explain their position. They didn't refute anything Bilezikian said.
So now women who accept & submit to God's will, as written, "subjucate" themselves ?
The article makes it easier, & helps you feel comfortable, as you lean towards your own understanding.
Yes, easily refuted. Go ahead and answer Wayne Grudem's question in the first article:
Chritianity today has long ago gone away from the word...knocking on the door of apostasy..
Well, Iconoclast...you just keep thinking that if it eases your mind.
You use "apostasy" as if it meant "beliefs different from the ones I feel really, really strongly about." Apostasy actually indicates a departure from orthodoxy.
By using the word the way you do, you actually highlight the fact that you might need to do some reading on church history.
And you might not want to use that word quite so much. Used here, it's not useful for anything other than making fundamentalists feel better about themselves.