Questions and Answers

 Why can't women take a more active role in the church such as being pastors? 

In answering this question, we must recognise that every person in the church has been given a particular gifting which helps to unify and build up the church as a whole. Now on top of this, some might have a string of gifts which work together in the same manner and for the same purpose. And in the case of gift given specifically to men which women should never usurp-- and one such gift is that of men being Pastors and women not being Pastors. It ultimately comes down to being a faithful steward of the gift you have been given; and therefore, it is matter of obedience. Let us note that it is not all men who are given this gift-- it is only some men.

The scriptures are clear on the fact that it to something which only men can fulfil; and it is not sign of Paul being sexist or misogynist. Both of these idea come from the mind of a unstable and imbalanced 21st century person. Let us take note of one passage: 

"Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,"  (1 Timothy 3:2-4;  Titus 5-9)

 A lot can be said on this scripture-- and it should be in the right context. But for the purpose of this answer I want you notice how he is paralleling two God given roles:  (1) the males role as the leader of the family.  (2) the males role as the leader of the congregation (the father and the pastor).There is an argument being put forth in this:  the overseer of the family must be able to lead in that environment which God has placed; and therefore, he likewise must do the same in the congregation. If he cannot do that in the natural family unit; then he cannot in the spiritual family unit. But let us make sure to understand women can and should teach but not in this environment. But there teaching has to be palatable for young children as that is the arena they can be a godly influence. In both of these environments home and church they are to have a more nurturing role. 

In both 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 and 1 Timothy 2:11-14 tell us how women are not given the authority to rule or teach the congregation but be submissive to the Lord's work as it is faithfully preach men only. 

Will Christians ever admit they are wrong about life being 6000 years old? 

The assumption behind the question is easy to see-- and it goes something like this :  

(1) some scientist think or believe that the earth is millions of years old. 

(2) the evidence suggests this; or at least that is what we are told. 

(3) therefore, the earth and universe is millions of years old. 

But the problem lies in the fact that its based on faulty information. the first premises is simply a belief; and erroneous one. But a belief nonetheless which is held by many people of many different persuasions which cannot be proven one way or another.  And we may not need to concern ourselves with it. And the same with the out come. It is the second one that we need to consider. This is said as if it were a bruit fact; but there are no such things as "brute fact"  just interpreted facts. Again, this is all we are dealing with interpreted facts-- and at this point who interpretation is correct?  Is it the creation-scientist who believe that the earth is young or the Atheistic or naturalist scientist who believe something else.

Let us not forget starting assumptions are still not being considered here: it has do with either creationism or Evolutionism  which is the truth? Well, we can begin to see the problem neither are provable by observational science which is what most things are understood to be the right point. No-- these are historical sciences; and man cannot know for sure without an infallible sources of truth to know which is the truth; and only the creationist has this.  Evolution cannot be demonstrated in any way shape or form. it is simply a hoax based on a lot misinformation; and a lot of wishful thinking.  

Now with this information at hand: God certainly created everything in this universe; and this can be agreed upon by all Christians alike. But the age is something which not all Christ are concerned with; and it is not a necessary thing either. I, however, believe that somewhere about 10, 000 year could be correct. But I do not make this an absolute point of contention. 

 

How comes Christians are dead set against Abortion? 

This is something which all Christians, who have taken the time to study and know their faith, must stand against because it is simply a deplorable act. If the taking of a life that stands before you is a crime; and it is-- then so to should the taken of a life that is still in the womb.  The oft repeated assertion is that one is fully formed and the other is not-- leads us to a simple but straight to the point question: on what grounds does one make such a statement the justification for murder? Or to make it more succinct:  where do we draw the line -- is a person who is born with deformity a fully formed or not fully formed person?  We do not have the right to say one way or the other on the matter-- ONLY GOD DOES.

But there several foundations as to why Abortion is  soul damning action that no one should ever contemplate.

(1)  They bear the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27). One of the most important realities concerning creation is that man is created in the image of God. this is true of every person alive and even dead; they were and we are image bearer-- none more so so than each newly born child.  This means they too have the same dignity and worth as we do who are grown and fully formed people. 

(2) They are gifts from God (Ps. 17:14).  It is clear that when we speak of the family as a unit;  it includes and pre-necessitates the fact of children. Christ says that "it is better to take one's life than to hurt one of these little ones"  but not in this manner. So Christianity has always made it clear that children are special blessings and treasure-- take note of that already mentioned verse: "You fill their womb with treasure; they are satisfied with children, and they leave their abundance to their infants"

.(3)   The giving and taking of life is God's pre-requisite.  It is only God who has the right to take life as he choose simply because it is He who gave life.  He is the creator and is the one sustains it-- and He is the judge. Therefore, Abortion effectively makes the doctor guilty in the sight of God and it makes him out to be a god. 

It is something that should never be allowed. 

 Is it right to take Genesis as a whole as literal?

This question is a very puzzling one because it assumes what it is trying to disprove; and that is you can only take a statement in one manner-- that being literal. And this term simply means to take something at face value  or as the dictionary definition of the term suggests  "taking words in their usual or most basic sense without metaphor or exaggeration."  So therefore, when one poses this question, we have already stepped in realm where the questioner may have a particular point in his mind when asking it-- and that means we need to discern that very application to the best of our ability in order that we may give a good answer.

Now let us consider the question. It assumes that there is only one way that most Christian understand a given book; or even, a given portion of a book. But this immediately runs into trouble because one book of scriptures can contain many different genres in it. Take the gospels, for example: given the fact that on the whole they are historical and biographical in content; this does not mean that they don't contain other kinds of genre Matthew has historical narrative; it has wisdom and it didactic as well as some parabolic statements. So this shows us that the question is not as thoroughly thought out as one would like it to be.

Now if we were to ask: does the flow of one account mean that it should be taken literally? Then yes is the answer. Because the event being depicted actually took place. But if you were to ask: does the manner of writing mean that it is should be taken literal in every point? Then no is the answer because there are statement which must be taken as non-literal such as poetry and parables. Now how does this help with the question?

should we take Genesis as literal?   Again, the use of the word "literal"  is somewhat off putting as it is not a good word. If you were to ask: Is Genesis Historical?  Then yes would be the answer-- everything that it depicts actually happened in history despite what the gainsayers like to claim based on no solid proof. Now the other aspect of this question, because no question is ever asked without hidden assumptions. They are really asking whether something can be proved as to the way it is described. And the answer to whatever it is creation or Evolution can not be proven from modern scientific testing because you can not use evidence from now to show what took place many many centuries ago when there was no given technology to aid in that quest. it is most guess work on the part of science. 

But we do have an infallible source which has never been disproven; but shows our theories and guess work can be inaccurate if it is never consulted. And; of course, I am speaking of the Bible.