Akita Suggagaki said:

Trump could end the shutdown tomorrow. Such poor leadership is tragic.

Click to expand...

Trump is not a US senator.
You don't want him to suddenly become a king, do you? That's the only way he could simply end the shutdown tomorrow. Ending the shutdown requires 5 Democrat votes, something that seems about as likely as pigs flying at this point.

Hentenza said:

Sinning willfully would amount to rejection of the Holy Spirit since it is He who convicts not the law.

Click to expand...

(CLV) Jn 16:7
"But I am telling you the truth. It is |expedient for you that I may be coming away, for if I should not be coming away, the consoler will not be coming to you. Now if I should be gone, I will |send him to you.

(CLV) Jn 16:8
And, coming, that will be exposing the world concerning sin and concerning righteousness and concerning judging:

What is sin?

(CLV) 1Jn 3:4
Everyone who is doing sin is doing lawlessness also, and sin is lawlessness.

What is righteousness?



Definition of righteous

1 : acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin

BPPLEE said:

I wondered when this one would show up. The woman was fleeing from a traffic stop and ran into a daycare. ICE did not target a school

Click to expand...

Judge temporarily bars DHS from removing day care worker detained in Chicago​

Santillana Galeano applied for either asylum or withholding of removal and was granted a work permit that is valid through Nov. 12, 2029, her lawyers said.

Her attorneys are asking Judge Daniel to order the government to grant her a bond hearing. They claim that DHS arrested her without a warrant in violation of a consent decree that requires agents to have one when arresting certain individuals.

partinobodycular said:

You may believe that rape improves fitness, but evolution obviously disagrees with you.

Click to expand...

It's not what I believe, it's been demonstrated that species that have a certain percentage of rapists perservere. It's a reproductive strategy that is highly successful

Ain't Zwinglian said:

The OT messiah didn't necessarily mean faith in specifically Christ's death and resurrection. Jesus predicted three times to his disciples his death and resurrection and yet they didn't believe.

Click to expand...

Ain't Zwinglian said:

So the question is asked again: Trusting in Christ's death and resurrection is required by all for eternal life. Does this mean all persons who died before Christ's death and resurrection are thrown in the lake of fire?

Click to expand...

Can you give a scriptural reference that says we must believe in Jesus’ death and resurrection in order to be saved? We are saved by faith through grace that He is the Son of God who has come to save us from our sins (which he accomplishes by His death and resurrection) but it isn’t the process that saves us, it is Christ.

Lots of people are saved without having any theological knowledge, because they put their faith in Christ.

Login to view embedded media
Tear Off The Roof - Brandon Lake

RocksInMyHead said:

For every citizen? No. But cross referenced with poverty level, yes - that's what we've been discussing. Keep up.

Click to expand...

So there's a stand for how far every poor person should live from a supermarket? Who came up with this standard that says a supermarket should be from a poor person?

The USDA says a Supermarket should be no further from poor people than a mile? He exactly is rhe USDA going to enforce this standard? Its a dumb standard. 50% of Americans live at least 2 miles from a grocery store.

RocksInMyHead said:

Okay? We're talking about people below the poverty line though.

Click to expand...

So? Whats so special about them? Again, are they supposed to get a supermarket on every block? How is that supposed to be enforced?

RocksInMyHead said:

Apparently the time and space to exercise

Click to expand...

Umm... no. I like everyone had to make my own time and space. We have a tendency to do that if we find it important.

RocksInMyHead said:

reliable transportation, a grocery store, and cooking implements. Because you wouldn't be claiming that everyone has those things if you didn't.

Click to expand...

Pretty much everyone does. You aren't going to make a claim using the extreme to try and disprove the rule are you?

You know after these conversations im even more convinced that we live in a massively entitled society.

keras said:

The rejoining of Judah; just a remnant, and the Christian Israelites, Galatians 6:14-16, will happen soon after the Sixth Seal world changer

Click to expand...

Christians were never the northern kingdom. The northern kingdom went into Assyrian captivity, because they had gotten into idol worship.

Do an online search for a map of divided Israel - made up of the northern kingdom and southern kingdom. Modern day Israel covers the land mass of both the northern kingdom and southern kingdom. The reuniting into one nation again has been fulfilled.

Ezekiel 37:15-28 proves your theory of a solar flare wipeout of current Israel and a replacement nation of Christians called Beulah in error.

Derf said:

In relation to the earth is a possible way to interpret the passage, I agree. But since the Earth is something that is named (Meaning that God said that something would be called "earth" after it was formed) and it came after the light was called "Day". In other words, the thing that is named (a name is given to it to identify it) is only given the name after it is formed. That doesn't mean the word isn't used earlier. For instance, "heavens" and "earth" are both terms that are used earlier, in vs 1, but later the name is applied to something that was just made. Which makes me think that when vs 1 talks about God making the the heavens and the earth in vs 1, it is the introduction to the account that is about to be described in the following verses. Something like this:
I am making a lamp. (The lamp doesn't exist yet)
First I'll buy some parts (The lamp doesn't exist as a lamp, but all the parts are there, formless and void)
and lay out my tools. (The lamp still doesn't exist)
I'll arrange all the parts to where they will connect to each other. (The lamp still doesn't exist as a lamp.)
I'll put all the pieces together and test them. (Now the lamp exists.)

I think it is similar to the Genesis account:
[Gen 1:1 KJV] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Statement like: I'm going to make a lamp.)
[Gen 1:2 KJV] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. (The parts are there, but the earth doesn't exist yet.)
[Gen 1:3 KJV] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
[Gen 1:4 KJV] And God saw the light, that [it was] good: and God divided the light from the darkness. (At this point Day and Night begin to exist)
[Gen 1:5 KJV] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. (Then He names the things that He made) And the evening and the morning were the first day. (Laying out of tools--you might need some light.)
[Gen 1:6 KJV] And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
[Gen 1:7 KJV] And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so. (At this point is when "Heaven" begins to exist)
[Gen 1:8 KJV] And God called the firmament Heaven. (Then God names the thing that He made, despite already referring to it in Vs 1) And the evening and the morning were the second day.
[Gen 1:9 KJV] And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so. (The "Earth" begins to exist, as well as the "Seas".)
[Gen 1:10 KJV] And God called the dry [land] Earth; (He names the thing that He made) and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: (He names the other thing that He made.) and God saw that [it was] good.




Yes, I think we are in agreement here, that it was "light" that was referred to in the early verses, and a light source in the latter ones.

I don't think there is a scriptural problem, nor scientific facts, but if you want to suggest some that we should discuss, I'm open to that.

No, as I pointed out above, Light was made first, before there was "Earth", and before there was "Heaven(s)". And "Heaven(s)" was made before "Earth". Keep in mind that I'm trying to read the passage for what it is trying to say, without putting my own ideas about the universe in there, at least just yet.

I don't think the earth is the first thing that was made, as stated above.

The skies above and the dirt beneath.

The skies above and the thing (space) that God placed the stars in.

Does it? If the "Heaven(s)" were in existence already, and then God made a firmament that He called "Heaven(s)", that's confusing. If God made the Earth, and then He made something else that He called "Earth", that's confusing.

Nice picture.

Click to expand...

The key here is to understand that verse 1:1 is not an event, but rather it is an introduction.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSVUE
[1] When God began to create the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was complete chaos, and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

Genesis 1:1-2 NRSV
[1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, [2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

That is the simple solution to how light is the first thing created, and why the heavens and the earth are created on days 1-3. It's why it appears as though things are created twice. But in reality, verse 1:1 isn't an event. It's just an introduction.

Another simple way to understand it is to simply put verse 2 in parentheses.

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth (and the earth was formless and empty and darkness was upon the face of the waters), God said let there be light.

Login to view embedded media
God Is More Than Able!! Yes I believe that!!

Jesus’ Treatment of Women

As far as I know, from what I read in the New Testament, Jesus always treated women with high honor and respect. He never talked down to a woman or treated any woman as though she was less valuable than a man, with maybe one exception.

As recorded in Matthew 15:21-28, it appears that Jesus’ seemingly harsh words to a Gentile woman were not meant in unkindness, but that they were meant to test her faith, and to lead her to stand up for what she believed, too. And then he honored her for her faith, which he said was “great faith.”

And when other men took advantage of women, for evil purposes, or when they mocked or criticized them, Jesus stood up for the women, and he protected them. And he cared about their needs, and he ministered to them, and he honored their faith. And, if he did rebuke them, he was loving and gentle in his rebuke. He was always tender with them, compassionate and loving. And he used women to share the gospel with men, too.

[John 8:1-11; Luke 7:36-50; Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 5:25-34; Luke 10:38-42; John 2:1-11; John 4:1-42; John 20:11-18.]

In fact, In Luke 7 we read that a Pharisee invited Jesus to eat with him at his house. When a woman who had a reputation heard he was there, she came there and she anointed his feet with ointment, and wet them with her tears, and wiped them with her hair, and caressed them with her kisses.

When the Pharisee disapproved of the woman, Jesus rebuked him. But what he said to the Pharisee was for the encouragement of the woman, as well. For, what Jesus said to the Pharisee is that everything that he should have done for Jesus, but did not do, the woman did do. For, he said, “she loved much.” And, he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

And we read in Luke 8:1-3 that some women even traveled with Jesus and the disciples, too, and that they helped provide for Jesus’ and the disciples’ needs out of their own means.

I am assuming that the women made things which they sold for money, and that out of their earnings that they helped provide for Jesus and his disciples in the work of the ministry. So, they were co-laborers with Jesus and with his twelve male disciples in the ministry.

Your Daughters Shall Prophesy

And, when the Scriptures teach on the gifts of the Spirit, they do not differentiate between men and women, i.e. that some gifts are not for women. In fact, in Acts 2:17-18 we read:


So, why is it then that we have these teachings in the New Testament that sound as though women are to always remain silent, that they are not to speak in the gatherings of the church, without exception? (1 Corinthians 14:34-35; 1 Timothy 2:11-12). Doesn’t that seem contradictory to how Jesus treated women? And isn’t it contradictory to the passage in Acts 2, and to other New Testament scriptures that speak of women prophesying?

And why is it that so many church congregations, at least here in America, do not allow their women to prophecy (preach) in their gatherings? And some pastors treat women as though they are dirt under their feet for them to walk on? For, Jesus never treated a woman like that. He valued women, and he used women in ministry, and he even sent women out to share the gospel with men. And the Holy Spirit of God gifted women to prophesy. So, why would God then turn around and put the smack down on women?

And, why, then would the Scriptures talk about how we are all one body in Christ, and that we are all necessary, and that one part should not say to another, “We have no need of you!”? And why would it teach that the body grows and builds itself up in love and in the faith as “each part” does its work? And then tell our women that their part, which God gave to them, and for which he gifted them, is not permitted? Is the church then not suppressing the gifts of women?

How can we resolve these seeming contradictions? Is it possible that these passages on the silence of women in the church can have another plausible explanation other than the complete and total suppression of the gift of prophecy among the women in the church? And, if so, what might that be?

For, women obviously prophesied in New Testament times (See: Luke 2:36; Acts 2:17; Acts 21:9; 1 Corinthians 11:5). So, how are we to understand this restriction of the silence of women in the church if God poured out his Spirit on both men and women so that they could prophesy, and we have recorded in the New Testament that there were indeed women who did prophesy? What is the context? What is the purpose of the restriction?

The Context Reveals

Well, the context of 1 Corinthians 14 is that of teaching on spiritual gifts, teaching on love, and instructions regarding the misuse of the gifts and the right way in which the gifts are to be used, and regarding their purpose, too. So, this is in the context of 1 Corinthians 12 and 13, also.

And it is in 1 Corinthians 12 where we are taught that each body part is necessary, and that we are not to say to another part of the body that we have no need of him or of her. And it is God who decides who gets what part, too. And it is the Holy Spirit who assigns the gifts.

And, here in 1 Corinthians 14 we are told first off to pursue love, and to earnestly desire the spiritual gifts, especially that we would prophesy. And the one who prophesies speaks to people for their upbuilding, consolation and encouragement. The one who prophesies edifies other believers, for the spiritual growth and advancement of them in the faith. He or she inspires, cheers, urges, nurtures, promotes and fosters spiritual maturity and holy walks in the Spirit of God, too, which is consistent with Ephesians 4:15-16.

So, if both women and men are gifted with the gift of prophecy, and we women are to use the gifts of the Spirit given to us for the upbuilding and the encouragement of the body of Christ, his church; and if not one of us is to say to another “We have no need of you,” and if all the parts are necessary, and women did prophesy in the New Testament, and the body of Christ is built up in the faith as “each part” does its work, then we have to conclude that these instructions on the silencing of women have a meaning other than the absolute silence of women in the church.

Order and Submission

So, again, let’s look at the context. The context has to do with how gifts are used, and it has to do with the order in which they are used. And, then let’s look at the wording of the passage, too. For, it all comes down to submission. It says that a woman, if she has questions regarding something she wants to learn, that she should ask her husband at home. So, apparently women were interrupting the order of service to ask questions. And some of this is definitely cultural to that day and time.

It also appears, by the context, that these women were usurping authority over the men, for it clearly instructs them that they are to be in submission to their husbands, and to the leadership of the church, and it indicates that they were stepping out of that order by speaking in the church gatherings in a disruptive way. So, these women were out of order in what they were doing.

And the passage in 1 Timothy 2 supports this, that women are not to usurp authority over the men, and that they are not to instruct men in an authoritative manner which would require men to obey them.

So, in conclusion, I believe God has gifted both men and women in various ways, and that Scripturally both men and women are gifted with the gift of prophecy (preaching), which is for the edification and encouragement of the body of Christ and for their strengthening and nurturing of them in the faith, that they may all reach maturity in Christ Jesus, their Lord.

I believe Jesus values women highly, that he gifts them in ministry, and that he calls them to prophesy (preach) the truths of Scriptures so that the body of Christ might be drawn closer to their Lord in walks of faith, and so that they may not wander off from the faith to go after what is false. I also believe that our Lord uses women sometimes in areas usually assigned to men, but that he does so when so many men are spiritually AWOL, and they are neglecting their callings (See Luke 7:36-50 as illustrative of this).

Lastly, I believe it all comes down to submission to the authorities within the church. If women are given permission to speak, and it is done in proper order, and if it is done in the right way, for the upbuilding of the body of Christ, then they should be allowed to speak. But they are not to usurp authority over the men nor to cause a disturbance in the congregation, and they are not to instruct men in the sense of being over men in authority. But they are to remain in submission and in proper order, and then they can speak as they are called upon to speak, as God gifts them to speak.

[Acts 2:14-18,42-47; Romans 12:1-8; 1 Corinthians 12:1-31; 1 Corinthians 14:1-5; Galatians 6:1; Ephesians 2:8-10; Ephesians 4:1-16; Ephesians 5:15-21; Ephesians 6:10-20; Philippians 2:1-8; Colossians 3:12-16; Titus 2:11-14; Hebrews 3:13; Hebrews 10:23-25; James 5:19-20]

Have Thine Own Way, Lord

Words by Adelaide A. Pollard, 1907
Music by George C. Stebbins, 1907

Have Thine own way, Lord! Have Thine own way!
Thou art the potter, I am the clay.
Mold me and make me after Thy will,
While I am waiting, yielded and still.

Have Thine own way, Lord! Have Thine own way!
Search me and try me, Master, today!
Whiter than snow, Lord, wash me just now,
As in Thy presence humbly I bow.

Have Thine own way, Lord! Have Thine own way!
Wounded and weary, help me I pray!
Power, all power, surely is Thine!
Touch me and heal me, Savior divine!

Have Thine own way, Lord! Have Thine own way!
Hold o'er my being absolute sway.
Fill with Thy Spirit till all shall see
Christ only, always, living in me!

Login to view embedded media
Caution: This link may contain ads

Women in Ministry
An Original Work / August 4, 2019
Reposted on November 7, 2025
(with slight editing)
Christ’s Free Servant, Sue J Love

essentialsaltes said:

As long as it's on your own time and doesn't interfere with your work (like supplying marriage licenses) of course.

Click to expand...

Okay, I can get on board with that. If a cop says nasty things about gay people but treats them okay at work that would be fine.

BCP1928 said:

How is this "indigenous" knowledge acquired? By observation and experience? That's the way "scientific" knowledge is acquired as well. What's the difference?

Click to expand...

I think any determinations about reality starts with observations. You can't do anything without observations. The difference is that in science its a 3rd party endeavour. Its looking from the outside in. Or rather removing the subject from the equation.

Whereas ancient and indigenous knowledge is including the subject. When you say by observation and (experience) I don't think science fully captures experience and especially conscious experiences as a layer or aspect of reality. They exclude this and for good reasons.

Science is only looking at one aspect of reality which is quantifiable in terms of a assumption that reality is fundementally physical or naturalistic and measured in terms of matter, particles, fields, forces and even epiphenomena that are caused by the physical such as consciousness.

So already we have a big gap or difference in how the world and reality is seen. Or before what is being measured as to what is reality. Science excludes a big chunk of human experiences and knowledge directly with nature and reality when immersed in it.

Before the age of Enlightenment and especially the further you go back we see a completely different worldview or reality. One governed by God or the gods or spirits or whatever transcedent belief was held. But fundementally the same.

So science cannot in the first place even understand this paradigm let alone make objective claims that all reality is tiny bits of matter and there is nothing beyond.

That is why I used the example of the Christian worldview and how this contains knowledge beyond the scientific material worldview. The observations at least with testimony are the same. Something happened beyond the naturalistic processes. The knowledge is different to the naturalistic explanations.

Thus on this basis unless you want to declare all religions and beliefs in such transcedent knowledge is all conspiracy and whacko. Which I think you can't because the methodology used is not even able to determine that. Then we have another layer of knowledge that is a reality itself and needs to be looked into as a real influence on reality, nature and the world.

Coming full circle now and after a few hundred years of Enlightement and science it seems strange that many areas of science are turning back to this fundemental idea that conscious experience and the role of the subject being immersed in reality which cannot really be seperated from it is gaining attention.

It seems we cannot really know reality when we seperate the subject out as there is always a subjective and transcedent element to it even in science.

So maybe the majority of our history being immersed in nature and reality as subjects and the knowledge that came from this was more real then perhaps what science tells us. Which came along relatively recent and purposely goes about seperating the subject out. Which actually also seperated a big chunk or knowledge about reality that seemed to be the majority of our history.

In fact not only seperates out but actively forces this aspect and knowledge out and thus we see the loss of Indigneous knowledge. Which I think points to this being more about belief than fact or truth ultimately or fundementally. In other words the methodology epistemically is forced over other ways of knowing.

Relegating the ancient and Indigenous knowledge as superstition or make belief when it was probably closer to reality than the material and naturalistic worldview. Or at least an important aspect that gives a deeper knowledge of reality.

As it currently stands, both parties are trying to play the "blame game" to the best of their abilities...trying to propose bills to fund SNAP and pay federal workers, with poison pills attached so they can simply say "aha!!! see, it's the other side that's being difficult"

Ron Johnson proposing bills that democrats are rejecting because "it would give the executive branch too much discretion"

Chuck Schumer proposing bills that republicans are rejecting because they include ACA extension subsidies

That's is what is known as "poison pill politics"... tossing something in a proposal, on purpose, that you know the other side would never go for as a means to be able to say "see, we tried to fix it, but they rejected it! They're the problem!"

It's things like this that made me a die-hard libertarian for a good portion of my 20's lol.

These people don't care about you. They're getting paid more than most of you...and for what? to have a peeing contest against each other to see who can please their donors the most?

I said it before in another thread...

There should be a provision that dictates that if these kinds of matters can't be resolved in 30 days, state governors have the option to call a special elections to replace them the same way they do when someone vacates a seat.

"I don't care if you've held that seat for 30 years... if you're unwilling to compromise for self-serving reasons, you're outta there"

All of the senators and house reps are still getting paid during this, and taking long weekends to boot. Many of the key players in the legislature are bloody rich...well beyond what a person making $170k/year would be able to achieve under normal circumstances...but that's another topic. Do you think they're bothered by a shutdown?

CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN said:

It's nonsense. Trump wants that country oil. Trump pretended, that country was so bad about Christians . When other countries are worse. So Christians would be okay, with the Trump's abuse , over this country.

Click to expand...

If Trump cared so much about the Christians in Nigeria that he'd spill American blood for them, then he should grant them asylum in the US.

Currently, the situation in Nigeria is like: Imagine if the Civil War had not been fought and we still had slavery in the south, no slavery in the north, and the border states like Missouri and Tennessee had sporadic fighting between the two sides.

That's what's going on in Nigeria between the Muslim states in the north, the Christian states in the south, and mixed states in the middle.

The only way the US can deal with that militarily is to put American troops in the middle...prepare for that situation to last a generation until the US decides it's dragged on long enough and withdraw.

But Trump doesn't really intend that. He's going to bully Nigeria for a better oil contract, and in the meantime look to his base like he's doing something significant for Christians "somewhere."

Login to view embedded media
This song gives me hope that I might find my Soulmate. Thank You God for letting me find this Beautiful song!!

Thank you Gwen Stefani for this Beautiful song you made!!

Maria Billingsley said:

The new Mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, is a Democrat who won on a progressive platform focused on making the city more affordable. Hamas is a designated foreign terrorist group, not a political party that runs in American elections. Your statement is wildly inaccurate and basically political fear-mongering used to attack a candidate who is outspokenly pro-Palestinian.

Click to expand...

Mamdani is a Democratic Socialist (similar to Bernie Sanders), not an actual member of the Democratic Party.

Part of the reason Democratic Socialists have bene gaining ground is the legacy of neoliberals being in the establishment in the Democratic Party for some time (Clinton normalized Democrats support for neoliberalism). Ezra Klein recently tried to rehabilitate neoliberalism, but most voters in the US increasingly find neoliberalism uninspiring.

The Barbarian said:

Socrates made the same claims about writing citing an Egyptian king:
“O most expert Theuth, one man can give birth to the elements of an art, but only another can judge how they can benefit or harm those who will use them. And now, since you are the father of writing, your affection for it has made you describe its effects as the opposite of what they really are. In fact, it will introduce forgetfulness into the soul of those who learn it: they will not practice using their memory because they will put their trust in writing, which is external and depends on signs that belong to others, instead of trying to remember from the inside, completely on their own. You have not discovered a potion for remembering, but for reminding; you provide your students with the appearance of wisdom, not with its reality. Your invention will enable them to hear many things without being properly taught, and they will imagine that they have come to know much while for the most part they will know nothing. And they will be difficult to get along with, since they will merely appear to be wise instead of really being so.”

Click to expand...

And Socrates was obviously wrong in his criticism of Thoth, just as the idea AI is inherently psycho-degenerative is wrong.

fide said:

"Maybe that's me"? It is good that that thought came to you, dear Lady. This whole thread was troubling to read, because a great opportunity for obedience to the Lord was missed, concerning forgiveness. That is so very important for us all, to be always forgiving toward others - even overt enemies - because none of us are ready to meet the Lord, and we are told to ask, to plead to be forgiven by our Lord "as we forgive those who trespass against us." I say none of us are ready, now, to stand before Him and how do I know this? Because we are still here. God is not finished with us, not yet. We are all called to holiness. We can praise Him for His patience, His mercy, His enduring Love, and may we all grow in more than just tolerance, but godly mercy.

Click to expand...

This is something to think about. I don't even regard them as enemies, just not friends (right now at least). I say the latter because I haven't had enough time to really know them. It is hard, however, to hear people talk in this manner (at the table). I think this kind of fellowship is too much, too fast.

Terraforming exoplanets really requires ingenuity.

GEXOP

Hans Blaster said:

Why do they keep putting those awful things in my mixed nuts?

Click to expand...

They also have very high levels of selenium. It's very possible to be poisoned from eating too many Brazil nuts. But given their taste and texture, I don't suppose that happens very often.

christianlloydteegardin said:

We need a revival of God-honoring tradition and modesty.

Click to expand...

Amen.

christianlloydteegardin said:

1. Should I meet up with the pastors of both churches and discuss this passage in scripture and seek out their understanding? In essence, I want friendly debate.

Click to expand...

I don't see why that would be a problem, but both sides of the debate are pretty well hashed out in material you can find online. Just don't expect them to change their minds.

christianlloydteegardin said:

2. Should I continue to attend those two churches or should I consider looking for an Anabaptist/Plymouth Brethren congregation? I want to follow Scripture to the tiniest detail.

Click to expand...

I found a church that still honors head covering in Orthodoxy. That's pretty far off from Plymouth Brethren, but you should know that there are other options outside of them.

For me, it's pretty clear that effectively all Christians up until 1960 or so weren't mistaken about what St. Paul meant, and that arguments about the passage being figurative or even based on an erroneous belief about hair being a reproductive organ are just modern post hoc rationalizations for a result of the feminist movement and a general loss of modesty in modern culture.

Carl Emerson said:

What do others think ?

Click to expand...

If you are looking for the popular vote, you will have it.

If looking for God’s Truth Psa119:151, you might need to keep digging and prayerfully study more and realize that it doesn’t say we do not need to keep the 4th commandment anywhere in this passage, it was written decades after the Cross, Jesus would have to die all over again to make a change to His covenant. He already promised He would not alter His words Psa89:34 Mat5:18 God tells us what we need to know from His own mouth, but the same warning in Hebrews 4, still continues on. Heb 4:6-7 Heb3:7-13 Psa95:7-13 Heb4:11

Guess all gets sorted out soon enough.