Paul is clearly speaking of roles in spiritual leadership, not a general prohibition for any situation. Even is spiritual leadership, the Bible on many occasions, Old and New Testaments, has women in authority, so Paul's prohibition is not binding in ALL situations. I myself am still working this issue out in my own heart and mind, so I don't want to take an absolute position. My point here is that the verse you are using pertains to spiritual leadership, not secular.
Bob ~~ You KNEW I'd weigh in on this. Paul said women shouldn't teach men ... he also acknowledged Priscilla, Lydia and several other women in leadership roles. So did he change his mind or is someone mis-reading him? I would suggest the latter. I suggest Paul meant that women shouldn't teach men WHEN THERE WAS A QUALIFIED MAN WHO WAS WILLING TO DO IT... (and that often is NOT the case) think, for example, of women missionaries working in heathen areas. If you honestly believe that the Scripture you quote creates a "no argument" situation then you'd better start wearing a robe and sandals, grow out your beard and start meeting in a house because God was the Author and Designer of the church ... and He certainly didn't order buildings to be built. I agree that the occassions when women are in authority over men are rare (I would NEVER take a pastorate ... but I would be willing to preach on occassion) because God has always been for the protection of the woman and pastoring is a stressful situation. So is the presidency. I wouldn't want the stress ... but if there's a woman who DOES ... and SHE IS QUALIFIED ... then why not? NOTE: THIS DOESN'T NOT MEAN I WANT HILARY ELECTED! SHE IS NOT QUALIFIED, SHE IS NOT SMART ENOUGH, SHE IS NOT CLASSY ENOUGH AND SHE IS A MANIPULATOR. More later cause I'm late/
__________________
"I had been eagerly planning to write to you about the salvation we all share. But now I find that I must write about something else, urging you to defend the faith that God has entrusted once for all time to His holy people." Jude 3 Joyce
My context was that the Bible discusses women not being in authority over men. A public office such as President of the United States certainly is in a poition of high authority. That is where I was coming from.
__________________
A preacher in those days, when he felt God called him to preach, didn't hunt up a college or seminary, he hunted up a good horse, took off across the country and began crying "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world"!
The verse actually says Jesus, but we all understand that Jesus is the Word and vise-a-versa
Hevrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
__________________
A preacher in those days, when he felt God called him to preach, didn't hunt up a college or seminary, he hunted up a good horse, took off across the country and began crying "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world"!
I would not want to see a woman as President. I believe that women are and can be too emotional for such a position. I know that will not set right with some of the readers but it is what I beleive. A example of this is what Hillary did just the other day in New Hampshire. She used her emotions such as crying while talking to a group of ladies and it made the headlines and even she claims that was the turning point for the women vote. Making major life threatenig decisions for an entire country should not be made on emotions. I also believe the Bible backs this even though some will continue to claim that the Bible only states what it does because of the custom of the times back then. I stand on the verse that says, same yesterday as tomorrow. OK ladies -- start throwing the darts
__________________
A preacher in those days, when he felt God called him to preach, didn't hunt up a college or seminary, he hunted up a good horse, took off across the country and began crying "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sins of the world"!
