Are women pastors, women preachers ordained by God(applicably so by apostles) according to any holy scripture?

<p>>Reported Vote: DavidAZ // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: con</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: fails-to-analyze</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>The voter must analyze arguments presented by both sides. Simply saying that one side forfeited some rounds is not sufficient.</p>

<p>---DavidAZ's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>Obvious reason is that Pro forfeited. </p>

Please see DavidAz's vote

If that's not the basis for removing your vote (note: it isn't), there's no point in having a debate over it, nor is that the standard for vote removals on the site. If you want to try and make it policy, argue your case in the forums.

I think it should work like this

Every time a mod wants to remove a vote, they must treat it like a sudden death one round debate and make an argument against the vote

then at least 3 other mods or high level members should vote if you debunked the logical/empirical validity of my vote

I'm not debating the veracity of the arguments you made in your vote, nor is it relevant to the removal of your vote. I'm pointing out that their imposition on the debate violates site rules for voting (see the "Based on Outside Content" section: https://info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy#based-on-outside-content). That is relevant. If you have an argument for why your vote doesn't violate the voting standards for this site, please, provide it.

Mods should be forced to debate me on my votes before they are allowed to remove them. If you can debunk what it said then you have grounds to remove it.

Whatever your opinion of the voting system, you are still required to abide by it if you wish to cast a vote.

The voting system rewards baseless opinions and people who are charitable to the one who was incorrect more than people who go by who was on the right side of the proposition

You aren't required to award points in order to give feedback to the debaters, but if you do wish to award points, then yes, you need to consider points the other side did not touch even if they are objectively false. You can call them out on it, but inserting your own arguments in places Con fell short is not a viable alternative. Pro never gets a chance to respond to you. If you want to award points here based on Pro not meeting his BOP, then that should appear in your RFD. I didn't even see you mention BOP.

If I operate like you want me to the side that was wrong as per the proposition wins every time they make an objectively false assertion without the opponent countering it. Con would say pro didn't meet BOP and he was right, he just didn't understand the scope of how badly pro missed the mark

I didn't penalize you for knowing more than the debaters. I removed your vote because you are effectively putting your finger on the scale for Con's side of the debate, granting him answers to Pro's arguments, in order to award him the win. If you want to inform the debaters and explain where you feel their arguments are lacking, you are entirely welcome to do so. You can post in the comments or add to your RFD with notes on what the debaters did wrong in your estimation. You are, however, not allowed effectively include arguments you wish someone had made in the debate as a means of awarding it to the side you think should have won.

its not my fault that I know more about the topic at hand than either debater. That is the issue with the whole system. You allow people who know nothing to give objectively false dogwater opinions to justify their votes because they only talked about what the debaters directly did, but then when someone comes in with more knowledge than the debaters they are penalized for it.

The rules for voting are relatively consistent between the two sites, yes. If you think it's a joke that you're required to assess the arguments as given in the debate and not impose your own, that's a different story.

I see voting here is just as much a joke as it was on DA

<p>>Reported Vote: MasterDestroyer // Mod action: Removed</p>
<p>>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy</p>
<p>>Voted for: con</p>
<p>>Reason for Decision: bias-influences-decision</p>
<p>>Reason for Mod Action:</p>
<p>The voter appears to be inserting quite a few of their own arguments on behalf of Con rather than evaluating the arguments that Con presented directly. For example, the voter points to verses that counter the ones Pro presented, but Con didn't have any biblical verses in his arguments. Similarly, pointing out that Pro's arguments fell short of the voter's expectations, e.g. Pro did not demonstrate "that female deconesses had that role ever in the NT era," is the voter applying a set of criteria to Pro's arguments that is never explicitly laid out by Con. The voter must evaluate the debate as presented by the debaters, and it's both unclear that he evaluates either side's arguments and pretty clear he's predisposed against certain points.</p>

<p>---MasterDestroyer's former vote---</p>
<p>Voted for: con</p>
<p>When it comes to women being pastors/presbyters/bishops (all interchangeable from a biblical POV) there was no contest. Pro relied on appeals to emotion/misogyny and out of context verses. For every verse pro uses in support of female clergy there is a verse which implies the opposite to counter it, and none that explicitly demonstrate female clergy beyond the office of deaconess.

Where con shoots himself in the foot is by including the word "preachers" in the proposition. This could go either way depending on how you define preaching.

In modern churches Deacons often preach sermons, pro has not demonstrated that female deaconesses had that role ever in the NT era. However it depends heavily if you confine the definition of "preaching" to a formal sermon in a church setting or if this includes general evangelism. If it does include evangelism, then it is clearly stated in the bible that women participated in this.

Pro could have won if he honed in on the pastor/preacher distinction and defined preaching as something beyond formal sermons in a church. The arguments used by pro instead seemed like a combination of poor exegesis and feminist ideology. </p>

@GreatfulGoy

You are correct that Yeshua wanted us to be good to all. Bible says that directly. Love your enemies, God is good to both good and evil, because he is omnibenevolent.

You complain about people not calling Jesus Yeshua but then say He was like this.

Pay to Caesar and being good earthly slaves to unjust, cruel masters implies Yeshua wanted us to be good to even tyrants. No revolutions, just hung on a cross obediently.

No, he never once implied it. It is Paul you are referring to. Yeshua chose only Jews as Apostles. Luke is the only Goy of the extended 70-72.

Paul consistently said Jews first, Goyim/Gentiles second in being judged and doing the right thing.

Didn’t Jesus say those differences don’t matter anymore in that exact context?

Doesn’t the Bible say there is neither Jew nor Greek?

When Jesus said “pay to Caesar,” He meant only in political matters. This is why He says, “render to God things that are God’s.” It’s a lesson about the relation between Church and state.

The Bible didn’t condemn voluntary “slavery” but condemned involuntary slavery (kidnapping; you can find many verses condemning this).

The New Testament condemns homosexuality both explicitly and implicitly in many places. (So much for the Old-Testament-is-void argument)

At least you understand why we need the Church to make decisions for us.

He even had racist undertones at times especially to a pagan woman but even how he described he is there 1st for Jews and only 2nd for Gentiles, repeatedly.

I am not sure you realise that if the Bible is taken sola scriptura, Jews are then superior to Goyim (to a degree, not saying absolutely but partly).

I am not saying this to stir antisemitism. I just don't understand how anyone reads the Bible and sees it as solving issues of society.

It doesn't really and maybe that is why Christ conceded 'pay to Caesar what is owed to Caesar' and Peter+Paul said to be good slaves to our earthly masters even if they are unjust.

Clearly God did not come to solve all our issues. He merely gave a path to individual salvation.

The same Christians that use Leviticus to justify being very anti LGBTQ ignore massive parts of OT and say old law does not apply anymore.

How about this, justify to me how insignificant most women except Eve (and that did not go well) were in the Bible and then explain to me 1 logical reason that is not sexist, why Mary Magdalene was not an apostle but Paul (who was not in the 12) was.

Just look at Christ’s interactions with women. He broke the society norms of the day. If He wanted, He would have made more, but He didn’t, for a reason.

The society definitely was and Christ barely changed that part.

The Bible is misogynistic?

Word debate

Is anybody bold as a lion to defend his position?

Got all these comments and not one to accept the challenge, no not one.

Preachers, yes. Pastors? No.
The qualifications to be a deacon and bishop apply to men.
And bible says a woman is to not usurp authority and teach men.

A woman can be anything except a pastor, deacon, bishop or a teacher over men (children and other women are fine) literally.

It was an accident. It was looking at multiple comments at the same time.