• the argument in defence

    From mick falconer@hermeneutika@msn.cpm to uk.religion.christian on Sun Feb 1 10:12:21 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    The argument in defence of unveiled women in authority is that the New Testament was written in a age where women were regarded as second class citizens and that here in the 21st century we are more enlightened.
    However for me this all depends on ones view of Scripture. The above
    view is saying that Scripture is historically and culturally determined
    and as such as history and culture change so does Scripture. But if one
    takes the high and holy view of the absolute inerrancy of Scripture then
    the historical and cultural arguments fail. What the Holy Spirit wrote
    two thousand years ago, stands for today. God have mercy on all of us.

    1Ti 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over
    the man, but to be in silence.

    1 Cor 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.


    2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these
    things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that
    are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other
    scriptures, unto their own destruction.




    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Sun Feb 1 17:38:52 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 01/02/2026 10:12, mick falconer wrote:

    The argument in defence of unveiled women in authority is that the New Testament was written in a age where women were regarded as second class citizens and that here in the 21st century we are more enlightened.
    However for me this all depends on ones view of Scripture. The above
    view is saying that Scripture is historically and culturally determined
    and as such as history and culture change so does Scripture. But if one takes the high and holy view of the absolute inerrancy of Scripture then
    the historical and cultural arguments fail. What the Holy Spirit wrote
    two thousand years ago, stands for today. God have mercy on all of us.

    If you really believe what you have just written, I invite you to join
    me in observing the seventh-day Sabbath. If you don't, then I must
    question your motives: the Bible must be followed in every detail when
    putting down women, but I can ignore it when it is inconvenient for me personally.

    Are you a misogynist or a Biblical inerrentist?

    1Ti 2:12-a But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

    A little bit further on Paul tells Timothy, "Let as many slaves as are
    under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the
    name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed."

    Do you feel that slaves should still respect their masters and not rebel against their authority? Would you feel the same if, like the hero of Stevenson's "Kidnapped", you were the one destined for slavery?

    If you are like me, you recognise that St Paul, guided by the Spirit,
    was giving good advice suitable for that culture, but not to be taken literally in every culture and every age. And likewise with the advice
    about women teaching.

    1 Cor 11:10-a For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.

    What does it mean for a woman to have authority on her head? And what do
    the angels have to do with it? Explain those things satisfactorily and
    your thoughts on the role of women might carry some weight.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From John@megane.06@gmail.com to uk.religion.christian on Sun Feb 1 19:40:22 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 01/02/2026 17:38, Kendall K. Down wrote:

    If you are like me, you recognise that St Paul, guided by the Spirit,
    was giving good advice suitable for that culture, but not to be taken literally in every culture and every age. And likewise with the advice
    about women teaching.

    I agree with all that you have written, but how does one discern what's
    for that age and what's still applicable today?

    As an example, the bible tells Christians not to fornicate, perhaps the
    most broken "rule" Paul made, presumably with the aid of the Holy
    Spirit. Is it still applicable today, or should one be married in order
    to have sex?



    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Mon Feb 2 06:19:48 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 01/02/2026 19:40, John wrote:

    I agree with all that you have written, but how does one discern what's
    for that age and what's still applicable today?

    I agree that it is difficult and open to abuse. This is where
    consultation with a body of Christians is important. Open dialogue with Bible-believing Christians is a safe-guard against individual
    misconstruing of God's word.

    As an example, the bible tells Christians not to fornicate, perhaps the
    most broken "rule" Paul made, presumably with the aid of the Holy
    Spirit.-a Is it still applicable today, or should one be married in order
    to have sex?
    Or, indeed, what is marriage? Isaac simply took Rebekkah into his
    mother's tent and that was that. No religious ceremony at all.

    On that basis, I believe that it is sex which defines marriage, not the ceremony. You can have sex with a woman without a church service, but
    once you do, you are married to her for life. And God's ideal seems to
    be monogamy, life-long.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Mon Feb 2 06:25:02 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 01/02/2026 17:53, Timreason wrote:

    My counter-argument has always been that 'Inerrancy of scripture' does
    not appear in any of the ancient Creeds, which are meant to define basic Christian doctrine. So it is not acceptable IMO to try to claim that
    people who do not hold to that view are not Christians.

    I acknowledge your qualification "ancient" creeds. I have been asked to
    take communion in a Welsh Presbyterian church, and not wanting to offend anyone, I sought out and consulted a Welsh Presbyterian service book.
    There appears to be both a long and a short communion (the latter when a sermon precedes the communion) and in the long, the congregation recites
    the creed.

    It begins familiarly enough with "I believe in one God" and so on, but I
    was surprised - startled even - to find that belief in the Bible as the
    word of God appeared down towards the end along with the one baptism and resurrection to life everlasting.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Stuart@Spambin@argonet.co.uk to uk.religion.christian on Mon Feb 2 09:15:02 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    In article <10lpfm3$d2h4$4@dont-email.me>,
    Kendall K. Down <kendallkdown@googlemail.com> wrote:
    On that basis, I believe that it is sex which defines marriage, not the ceremony. You can have sex with a woman without a church service, but
    once you do, you are married to her for life. And God's ideal seems to
    be monogamy, life-long.

    I find that an interesting comment.
    --
    Stuart Winsor

    Tools With A Mission
    sending tools across the world
    http://www.twam.co.uk/
    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From mick falconer@hermeneutika@msn.cpm to uk.religion.christian on Wed Feb 4 05:25:04 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 01/02/2026 17:38, Kendall K. Down wrote:
    On 01/02/2026 10:12, mick falconer wrote:

    The argument in defence of unveiled women in authority is that the New
    Testament was written in a age where women were regarded as second
    class citizens and that here in the 21st century we are more enlightened.
    However for me this all depends on ones view of Scripture. The above
    view is saying that Scripture is historically and culturally
    determined and as such as history and culture change so does
    Scripture. But if one takes the high and holy view of the absolute
    inerrancy of Scripture then the historical and cultural arguments
    fail. What the Holy Spirit wrote two thousand years ago, stands for
    today. God have mercy on all of us.

    If you really believe what you have just written, I invite you to join
    me in observing the seventh-day Sabbath. If you don't, then I must
    question your motives: the Bible must be followed in every detail when putting down women, but I can ignore it when it is inconvenient for me personally.

    Are you a misogynist or a Biblical inerrentist?

    1Ti 2:12-a But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority
    over the man, but to be in silence.

    A little bit further on Paul tells Timothy, "Let as many slaves as are
    under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the
    name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed."

    Do you feel that slaves should still respect their masters and not rebel against their authority? Would you feel the same if, like the hero of Stevenson's "Kidnapped", you were the one destined for slavery?

    If you are like me, you recognise that St Paul, guided by the Spirit,
    was giving good advice suitable for that culture, but not to be taken literally in every culture and every age. And likewise with the advice
    about women teaching.

    1 Cor 11:10-a For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her]
    head because of the angels.

    What does it mean for a woman to have authority on her head? And what do
    the angels have to do with it? Explain those things satisfactorily and
    your thoughts on the role of women might carry some weight.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down



    Plenty of food for thought here. I dont think that anyone who knows me
    would regard me as a woman hater! Male and female He created them. There
    are many many Christians who i totally love and respect who will use the culturally and historically determined arguments concerning the Word of
    God. And every time i bring the subject up it seems to cause more
    trouble than i like. Or perhaps it is a case that the letter killeth and
    only the Spirit gives life.
    For decades i believed the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scriptures.
    However i could be wrong. Also for decades i believed in Christian
    Zionism .....and then i find out that there are alternate views. But all
    of the Churches i attended at the time either did not do end time
    prophecy or if they did they only taught the Christian Zionist approach.
    No alternative explantions were acknowledged or given......

    All this may mean i have had it completely wrong for decades......

    many thanks for everyones responses



    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Wed Feb 4 06:27:37 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 04/02/2026 05:25, mick falconer wrote:

    Plenty of food for thought here. I dont think that anyone who knows me
    would regard me as a woman hater! Male and female He created them. There
    are many many Christians who i totally love and respect who will use the culturally and historically determined arguments concerning the Word of
    God. And every time i bring the subject up it seems to cause more
    trouble than i like. Or perhaps it is a case that the letter killeth and only the Spirit gives life.

    Then why keep bringing it up?

    For decades i believed the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scriptures.

    The usual statement is "inerrancy in the autographs"; that is, the
    document written by Isaiah was inerrant but the process of copying and transmitting may have introduced errors.

    That is a convenient get-out argument based on faith, not fact. We do
    not have the autographs and therefore cannot prove that the error we
    have found was not in the original.

    However i could be wrong. Also for decades i believed in Christian
    Zionism .....and then i find out that there are alternate views. But all
    of the Churches i attended at the time either did not do end time
    prophecy or if they did they only taught the Christian Zionist approach.
    No alternative explantions were acknowledged or given......

    There are plenty of churches which do not espouse Christian Zionism, so
    it's a pity you restricted yourself to just one type of church.

    All this may mean i have had it completely wrong for decades......

    Based on things you have posted here, your conclusion seems entirely reasonable.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Timreason@timreason@hotmail.co.uk to uk.religion.christian on Wed Feb 4 07:48:52 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 04/02/2026 05:25, mick falconer wrote:

    Plenty of food for thought here. I dont think that anyone who knows me
    would regard me as a woman hater! Male and female He created them. There
    are many many Christians who i totally love and respect who will use the culturally and historically determined arguments concerning the Word of
    God. And every time i bring the subject up it seems to cause more
    trouble than i like. Or perhaps it is a case that the letter killeth and only the Spirit gives life.
    For decades i believed the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scriptures.
    However i could be wrong. Also for decades i believed in Christian
    Zionism .....and then i find out that there are alternate views. But all
    of the Churches i attended at the time either did not do end time
    prophecy or if they did they only taught the Christian Zionist approach.
    No alternative explantions were acknowledged or given......

    All this may mean i have had it completely wrong for decades......

    many thanks for everyones responses


    When it comes to theological matters, I expect most, probably all, of us
    have got a few things wrong!

    I don't think any church group is perfect, and if one was, they wouldn't
    let me join. It would no longer be perfect then...

    I doubt however, that you, or me, or anyone else here has got it
    'completely' wrong.

    The main thing is that you acknowledge that you *could* be wrong, and as
    long as each of us continues to think that about themselves, then that
    is very healthy. It's when people are convinced that they are 'Right',
    and therefore everyone who disagrees with them MUST be wrong, that the problems start.

    The tricky thing for us as Christians is to get along in continued
    fellowship with people with whom we might radically disagree. That's difficult, to respect all as brothers and sisters in Christ, made in His Image, even whilst acknowledging these differences.

    Anglicanism traditionally has endeavoured to offer a spiritual 'home'
    for all, despite a huge range of differing viewpoints. That has been considered by many to be both its strength, and its weakness.

    Effectively then, you should be able to find a church fellowship within Anglicanism where you feel comfortable. That is provided that you are
    not TOO rigid. None of us could probably find a group we agree with 100%.

    As I often say, "Your church doesn't feel 'right'? Don't worry, there's another one around the corner."

    Pax Christi.

    Tim.




    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kendall K. Down@kendallkdown@googlemail.com to uk.religion.christian on Wed Feb 4 21:20:05 2026
    From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

    On 04/02/2026 07:48, Timreason wrote:

    I don't think any church group is perfect,

    Hear hear.

    Effectively then, you should be able to find a church fellowship within Anglicanism where you feel comfortable. That is provided that you are
    not TOO rigid. None of us could probably find a group we agree with 100%.

    Not necessarily within anglicanism. There are churches outside the
    established church with, between them, an equally wide range of opinion.

    God bless,
    Kendall K. Down
    --
    This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
    www.avg.com



    --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2