The, umm … the judgment of God was, what – mistaken? Is that it? And now it’s been corrected by the ever almighty discernment of – Robert G. Hewitt? Or something? I’m no Ecumenical Council or anything, but that sounds kind of heretical. Or loopy.

How about heretical AND loopy? Do we have to choose?

Makes sense to me. Typical LibProt sophistry against biblical patriarchy and advocating for egalitarianism and women’s ordination. Standard fare bs issued by those in support of WO.

Aberrant theology like this is the cause of what’s happened to mainline LibProt churches and how they’ve become feminized.

And some, if not all, of them are apostasizing because of it.

Egalitarian feminization of the church. Now these churches/denominations are reaping what they’ve sown from these false shepherds and/or false teachers.

It’s a odd statement. What does the “present time” as in 2009 have to do with equality before God?

Oh, goody. Another discssion about the feminizing of the church. You could go over to SFIF, TUAD if you weren’t banned. ;^) There was a lively discussion about the feminization of the church. Yep, those feminazis. All that’s wrong with Christianity can be laid at the feet of ordained women and feminazis, because of course men can never be theological jacka***.

You’re getting better and better at locating TET loons, Mr. Johnson, but the quality of their loonship is also getting better, which makes things more difficult for those of us who want to mock and belittle them. Take this loon, for instance. I cannot take any pokes at the insane things he is saying because I don’t know what the hey he is saying! Ya stumped me with this one! Good show!

Get a grip, Fenelonspoke. At the slightest intimation that someone might not be a supporter of ordaining women, you throw a conniption. Not everyone agrees with it, and 2,000 years of church history and Holy Tradition, as well as Holy Scripture, are against it. As you will never debate the subject, no one knows what you claim supports it. But, in the meantime, please do accept the fact that there are some of us who do not accept it and have sound theological reasons for doing so and are not guided by some bias against women. I have a lovely daughter, so it would be very difficult for me to belittle women in general.

FenelonSpoke: “All that’s wrong with Christianity can be laid at the feet of ordained women and feminazis, because of course men can never be theological jacka***.”

Misrepresentation. Strawman.

Nobody on this blog, to the best of my knowledge, has ever said that *ALL* that’s wrong with Christianity can be laid at the feet of ordained women and feminazis.

Nobody.

I am not throwing a conniption; I was respomding to TUAD’s comments who did mention women’s ordination. i was also reponding top his tone in the past, and a disussion that took place on SFIF which you were not involved in. And I have never said that people who don’t support the ordination of women don’t have sound theological reasons for it, not have I ever suggested that people who don’t support the ordination of women automatically have a bias against women, Never. Since all the women except for me who post here except for me seem to be opposed to the ordination of women I would hardly suggest that now, would I? Since I have friends of both genders who don’t support women’s ordination I wouldn’t suggest that. Please don’t read something into my comments that I didn’t say. I don’t like the term “feminazis” and that’s what came to my mind, but yes,I think there are some men opposed to the ordination of women who have a bias against women. Some, not all.

Yes, you’re right. TUAD. That was overstatedt, but I do think some people think that is the major reason, and I think you’re one of them.

Not that you ever overstate things in a bit of irritation, of course. ;^)

And as I remarked numerous times, why should I debate it? I’m tired of debating it. Nobody’s mind will be changed; I will be vastly outnumbered ;^) and it’s a waste of blog space, IMO.

Don Janousek: “Not everyone agrees with it, and 2,000 years of church history and Holy Tradition, as well as Holy Scripture, are against it.”

Nuff said.

“As you will never debate the subject, no one knows what you claim supports it.”

Because she knows that she doesn’t have the support of church history, tradition, and Scripture (as you wrote so well) for being a pastorette.

Whatever denomination that she’s a part of is being feminized, and her being a pastorette is prima facie evidence of it being feminized.

Sorry; What I should have said that some men opposed to the ordination of women have a bias against women in leadership positions and react against women they perceive usurping a position that men should have. That is me is rather funny since I usurped nobody’s position since my denomination has been ordaining women for quite some time.

There is no such thing as a pastorette. No women pastor calls herself that. It sounds like a singing group.

‘Nuff said, but you carry on. ;^)

FenelonSpoke: “[M]y denomination has been ordaining women for quite some time.”

Shrug. So your denomination has been feminized for quite some time then.

Tata, troll.

FenelonSpoke: “There is no such thing as a pastorette.”

Sure there is. You’re one.

BTW, take it up with Professor William Tighe. I learned it from him.

Know what? I’ve discovered how to close comments for individual posts.