Search results

Again, do your homework. Look up ‘burden of proof reversal’.

Look it up. Don’t expect others to do your homework for you.

Fallacy: burden of proof reversal. Nobody is obligated to prove your theory false; rather, it is your obligation to ‘prove’ it true.

The "Golden Rule" usually refers to the biblical maxim, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." So is this vvv how you want others to treat you? Then you end with this: Perhaps it is indeed. Either that, or you need to rethink your attitude.

I'm logical, therefore I don't fall. ;)

I learned just now that I did not get a job that I really hoped to get. So why am I “happy in the Lord”? I prayed for God’s will to be done. I am confident that this is for the best because God’s will is better than mine.

Our Canadian congregation is not having a service, which makes the choice easy.

I haven't contributed yet to this thread, but I want to affirm the thread title... Yes and Amen!

Interesting question. While I didn't meet my wife through an online dating site, I was using them when I was looking (obviously, there were no suitable candidates who were interested). In direct answer to your question, No. Compare this to looking for a job. Do people sit on their couches...

That's simply idiotic. Having a model of the globe tells the seafarer nothing about where the ship is on that globe. Try using the brain God gave you instead of posting foolish blather.

Again, you demonstrate your ignorance of basic physics.

Already refuted. You simply refuse to look at the evidence.

I wonder whether the next generation of Christians will have the integrity to call out this generation of failed and false prophets. This generation doesn’t have the integrity to call out the last crop, and instead repeat their errors.

Good luck changing it. I don’t worry about the confused origins; I focus on celebrating the Incarnation.

Perhaps some do. Perhaps some of us assess the assertions, see the flaws without looking too hard, and then dismiss. Which is not discussion.

I understand your position, though I disagree with it. Thanks for explaining.

Your claims are plausible but come without citations. Can you provide any sources to support your claims?

I am not saying that women are completely forbidden; rather, you are saying they are forbidden except in rare circumstances. I say that is inconsistent, and that you must either make allowances that the text doesn’t, or you must rethink your position.

Either women can be elders, or they cannot. Your ‘rare situation’ cannot be the justification for allowing something otherwise completely forbidden. Alternately, women may indeed be elders, regardless of the availability of men to serve in that role.

I appreciate you asking, even if I don't have the chops in Greek to offer assistance. Many people have closed minds on the subject, as you have seen.