Featured is it biblical Sexism to say only men can be Elders/pastors in church?

Read that avalanche of verbosity? No thanks. Skimmed it and it's not anything I haven't heard before.. How about summarizing the salient point that says Paul WASN'T appealing to Creation? I'll respond to that.

 

You realize this statement is illogical, right? If you don't know what it means, then you can't know what it doesn't mean.

And, while we're on the subject, if the author admits he doesn't know what it means, then it would be foolish for me to ditch scripture in favor of his argument.

 

Given that your argument is based on an opinion piece by somebody who admits he doesn't know what the text means, I should think not.

 

I quoted the portion on the passages in Timothy and 1 Corinthians here in this thread. Although it's still a bit lengthy.

I'm not great at summarizing things in my own words, but here goes...
The verse in Timothy was not to say that Paul was citing the situation of Eve sinning first to say that that explains why women are not to be leaders in the church. (As I said, that wouldn't make sense as an argument.) It appears instead to be correcting a mistaken position by a cult of women teaching things contrary to scripture that was beginning to influence women in the church.
The passage in Corinthians was not related to women's positions in the church, but to the context on head coverings.

Throughout the article, too, it mentions several examples in scripture regarding women in leadership roles, with Paul referring to some specific women as apostles and deacons.

I'd really suggest reading the quotes I posted, though. They're much more thorough in their explanations and analysis than I am.

 

Excuse me for being blunt, but funny that nearly everyone here is more interested in attacking ME or misrepresenting the arguments I'm bringing to the table than in honest debate.
If that's the way if's going to be, I'm out. This isn't worth getting provoked to the point of getting pissed off over. But then that's the way you guys usually "debate" on here, what did I expect?

 

Straw man argument. (I didn't see this post at first, sorry.) You're taking one statement the author (or the person he was quoting, IDR) made and taking it completely out of context.
He is saying he doesn't know what this particular passage necessarily means--the context bring head coverings. In other words, he has no conclusion on that context.
But the verses in the passage DOES disprove the notion that women have no authority at all in the church/are not allowed to speak--and yes, you can draw that conclusion without having a conclusion on the main context of the passage.
Does it prove that women can be church leaders? No. But the article talks about other passages that do.

 

I'm going to be heading out in 20 minutes or so. Don't expect to hear from me until tomorrow, or late tonight if I'm still awake.

Let me rephrase a previous post: I'm more thin-skinned than normal right now. PLEASE don't purposely provoke me. If that's the way you all are going to do this, I will leave the discussion rather than sit there and be a target. Those interested in a real discussion I welcome.

 

That's not what I was referring to. Asking me to back myself up IS part of fair debate. Taunting me isn't. Falsely representing my argument (straw man) isn't.
(Keep in mind I'm not necessarily accusing you of either or both.)

Although maybe it was a bit much for me to ask anyone to read such a lengthy article. I thought people would at least skim it and try to find the key points.
There ARE verses that support women leadership roles, even from the very same passage or chapter. And I will cite them. But right now I'm tired and would like to go to bed. I'll do it later.

 

So then, if you admit that he said exactly what I said he said, how is that a straw man argument?

 

Sorry. I didn't realize we were supposed to just fall down and take your word for everything.

Please teach us more, Oh Great One.

 

All right. I went and read their "argument," and it's very weak. It ignores the key point in the verses and creates a new one out of thin air.

1) If indeed there was this "women's cult," there should be allusions to it either in the the Scriptures or the writings of the Early Fathers, or at the very least in the commentaries of just a few hundred years ago.

2) How is Adam's creation prior to that of Eve relevant, if Paul's instruction is androgynous?

 

The article does cite historical evidence, I believe. And it makes sense: Paul's letters often addressed specific circumstances in the churches he was writing to.
But you do make a fair point. That was something that I noticed, too.

2: The article does cover that. The cult's position was that Eve was created first and that rather than sinning she was "enlightened" by the serpent.

 

Yes, that's the conclusion most baptist churches come to. I'm familiar with it. And I no longer agree with it.

 

I'm no Bible scholar, but according to what I read, the verse on "usurping" authority over a man, the word in Greek isn't used anywhere else in the NT and suggests something akin to violent overthrow rather than leadership.

 

Because the evidence points to that Paul's passages in scripture do not say that, but are misread.

 

So we should ignore that Paul's actions kinda go against what his passages in scripture are thought to say, I guess.
Oh, on women in positions of authority, there are others that I will be bringing up once I am able. Kinda hard to argue this point when I can't get to the computer to get all the evidence together. Maybe my little brother will finally get tired of his games in an hour or two. (I don't get the appeal of playing Minecraft half the day and then all night and into the next day myself. I enjoy Minecraft, but all day...?)