Limits of tolerance ...

[MoreCoffee]

Is there a limit to tolerance in religion?

There are denominations with female ministers/priests and female bishops, some have same sex attracted ministers/priests and bishops, some have leaders who are in a marital-relationship with another man (or woman). Where would you draw a line?

What about abortion, artificial contraception, divorce? Is there a line here too?

 

[Lamb]

I was thinking about something similar yesterday. Some parts of Christianity hate and distrust "tradition" so much that they feel serving the needs of today's world is to be valued more and so they put aside what people formerly stood for and believed to appease those who push for it the loudest.

 

[psalms 91]

The lines have always been there, some just choose to justify their sin and make it acceptable and sadly to many times churchs and denoms have gone along with it

 

[MoreCoffee]

The lines have always been there, some just choose to justify their sin and make it acceptable and sadly to many times churchs and denoms have gone along with it

Does The Word of Faith movement have women ministers?

 

[psalms 91]

Of course and I see nothing wrong with that as long as men are not able or willing to fulfill their role which is the case in every denom including yours. You just exclude women but it doesnt negate the fact that there just are not enough men who will answer the call or be qualified to

 

[MoreCoffee]

Of course and I see nothing wrong with that as long as men are not able or willing to fulfill their role which is the case in every denom including yours. You just exclude women but it doesnt negate the fact that there just are not enough men who will answer the call or be qualified to

What about divorce? Is that permitted?

 

[psalms 91]

What about divorce? Is that permitted?

What did Jesus say? I think it was something along the lines of God didnt like like it but because of the hardness of mens hearts it was allowed under the Law of Moses?

 

[MoreCoffee]

What did Jesus say? I think it was something along the lines of God didnt like like it but because of the hardness of mens hearts it was allowed under the Law of Moses?

The Lord said much more than that Moses permitted divorce among the Jews because of their hardness of heart.

And approaching, the Pharisees questioned him, testing him: "Is it lawful for a man to dismiss his wife?" But in response, he said to them, "What did Moses instruct you?" And they said, "Moses gave permission to write a bill of divorce and to dismiss her." But Jesus responded by saying: "It was due to the hardness of your heart that he wrote that precept for you. But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. Because of this, a man shall leave behind his father and mother, and he shall cling to his wife. And these two shall be one in flesh. And so, they are now, not two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no man separate." And again, in the house, his disciples questioned him about the same thing. And he said to them: "Whoever dismisses his wife, and marries another, commits adultery against her. And if a wife dismisses her husband, and is married to another, she commits adultery." [Mark 10:2-12]​

 

[tango]

I was thinking about something similar yesterday. Some parts of Christianity hate and distrust "tradition" so much that they feel serving the needs of today's world is to be valued more and so they put aside what people formerly stood for and believed to appease those who push for it the loudest.

I think we need to be careful to differentiate what is sacred from what is merely traditional. The fact we've been doing something the same way for hundreds of years doesn't, in and of itself, make that tradition worth keeping.

On many issues I see arguments that boil down to little more than one side saying "we've always done it this way" and the other saying "we have to move with the times" and precious little appeal to Scripture to determine whether the tradition is worth preserving or not. Without that appeal to Scripture issues often come down to little more than matters of opinion and end up being rather like the market trader arguing with his customer over whether the bag of sugar really weighs a pound where one side insists it does and the other insists it's light but neither is willing to put it on a scale to settle the matter.

 

[tango]

Of course and I see nothing wrong with that as long as men are not able or willing to fulfill their role which is the case in every denom including yours. You just exclude women but it doesnt negate the fact that there just are not enough men who will answer the call or be qualified to

Does something become more or less sinful based on the actions of another? If women priests are acceptable then the actions of men make little difference; if women are not allowed to be priests then why does a lack of male priests make any difference to the ruling?

 

[psalms 91]

Does something become more or less sinful based on the actions of another? If women priests are acceptable then the actions of men make little difference; if women are not allowed to be priests then why does a lack of male priests make any difference to the ruling?

Personal observation, I once thought thta women should not lead, however, after hearing some women preach and recognized that God was with them, I now wonder if that passage meant what it seemed to be saying and have learned since that it was aboput something that unless you knew the times you would not have known. It was about women shouting questions from the balcony, not about excluding them

 

[MoreCoffee]

Personal observation, I once thought that women should not lead, however, after hearing some women preach and recognized that God was with them, I now wonder if that passage meant what it seemed to be saying and have learned since that it was about something that unless you knew the times you would not have known. It was about women shouting questions from the balcony, not about excluding them

It's interesting how passages change their meaning to suit one's experiences.

 

[psalms 91]

Or get misinterpreted to suit as well

 

[tango]

Personal observation, I once thought thta women should not lead, however, after hearing some women preach and recognized that God was with them, I now wonder if that passage meant what it seemed to be saying and have learned since that it was aboput something that unless you knew the times you would not have known. It was about women shouting questions from the balcony, not about excluding them

If women are allowed to lead, why did you write this earlier in the thread (emphasis is mine)?

Of course and I see nothing wrong with that as long as men are not able or willing to fulfill their role

The "as long as men are not able or willing" suggests that women can only lead if there are no men present who are able and willing. Either women are allowed to lead or they are not - I fully appreciate your point about women shouting questions in a disruptive manner and personally I don't have an issue with female ministers but can't see anything in Scripture that restricts women to leading based on the actions or inactions of men.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Or get misinterpreted to suit as well

How exactly is saint Paul's passage about not allowing women to rule over men in the church misinterpreted?

 

[psalms 91]

If women are allowed to lead, why did you write this earlier in the thread (emphasis is mine)?



The "as long as men are not able or willing" suggests that women can only lead if there are no men present who are able and willing. Either women are allowed to lead or they are not - I fully appreciate your point about women shouting questions in a disruptive manner and personally I don't have an issue with female ministers but can't see anything in Scripture that restricts women to leading based on the actions or inactions of men.

Because I do believe that man should lead but I also see that women are being led by the spirit and annointed to preach as well. No contradictuion

 

[tango]

Because I do believe that man should lead but I also see that women are being led by the spirit and annointed to preach as well. No contradictuion

So are you saying that women should be allowed to lead, or not? Unless I'm misunderstanding you it seems you're saying both.

If a woman is truly led by the Spirit why does it matter if any men are willing to lead, if she is anointed by God? Is her anointing any less anointed because men were also anointed?

 

[Rens]

 

[psalms 91]

So are you saying that women should be allowed to lead, or not? Unless I'm misunderstanding you it seems you're saying both.

If a woman is truly led by the Spirit why does it matter if any men are willing to lead, if she is anointed by God? Is her anointing any less anointed because men were also anointed?

No it isnt the annointing is there because God has annointed her. Would He if there were enough men to lead, dont know, only know that the annointing is present on women

 

[Lamb]

I think we need to be careful to differentiate what is sacred from what is merely traditional. The fact we've been doing something the same way for hundreds of years doesn't, in and of itself, make that tradition worth keeping.

On many issues I see arguments that boil down to little more than one side saying "we've always done it this way" and the other saying "we have to move with the times" and precious little appeal to Scripture to determine whether the tradition is worth preserving or not. Without that appeal to Scripture issues often come down to little more than matters of opinion and end up being rather like the market trader arguing with his customer over whether the bag of sugar really weighs a pound where one side insists it does and the other insists it's light but neither is willing to put it on a scale to settle the matter.

Most things that are being changed in modern times do have scriptural back up but it's that people refuse to "see" it any more since they say that it's no longer relevant to the times.