WOMEN PREACHERS

[SuperBaptist]

It is the only objective basis for determining God's will.--Scott

Well, this is where we differ. There is no objectivity in FAITH. Many of you treat your faith as if it were knowledge. We seek the truth, but I question those that claim to have found it before they have died and been given it by the TRUE judge.

I believe Jesus was Christ, and that he died for my sins. Beyond that, it is academic conjecture. That Bible you thump is a material possession. The voice you hear when you read it, I hope, is the Holy Spirit, 1 of 3 forms of GOD.

I hear constant denial of the Holy Spirit in this thread with suggestions that the Paper Bible is the "objective" authority. "Objective" is a science word, not a faith word. If you deny the Holy Spirit, you deny Christ and God. "Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" the only unforgiveable sin.

You treat this like a scientific treatise, but I suggest you just shelve it and meditate. Wherever your faith leads you, is the best you're gonna get.

 

[rbell]

You treat this like a scientific treatise, but I suggest you just shelve it and meditate. Wherever your faith leads you, is the best you're gonna get.

So, if in the course of my meditations, I determine that God is actually a giant chicken that lives on one of the moons of Saturn...it's OK, because wherever my faith leads me, that's the best I'm gonna get.

Sorry...I'm going to have to do better than a feeling. A warm sensation in my gut might be the Holy Spirit, or a gas bubble. Scripture keeps my faith informed.

Does the HS guide me? Absolutely! But I am kept from being a slave to emotional impulse by the truths of what God has revealed in His word. His impulses always line up with Scriptural principles.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by SuperBaptist:
It is the only objective basis for determining God's will.--Scott

Well, this is where we differ. There is no objectivity in FAITH.

That is simply false. Scripture claims to be the objective basis for faith.

However, since you have stated this opinion... and it is made on the basis of your "faith" (that there is no objectivity)... prove your statement.

You have taken a self falsifying position.

Many of you treat your faith as if it were knowledge.

Hebrews 11:1 calls it evidence... IOW's, "knowledge".

Christ promises "light" (ie. knowledge) through faith, John 12.

The dichotomy you would like to hang to simply isn't there. The Christian faith hinges on the argument that objective truth exists and is knowable because God has revealed it.

We seek the truth, but I question those that claim to have found it before they have died and been given it by the TRUE judge.

On what basis do you question it? Because you think it is untrue, right? Which means you think you know the truth... rendering you an abject hypocrite.

Because I believe that truth is knowable through the scriptures. I can actually affirm your contention that we cannot vainly claim to "know all truth" while still bound by flesh and its weakness. All things in scripture are not of the same certainty. But that doesn't mean that a very great number of things are not of absolute certainty.

"Should women lead the choir?" is somewhat less certain biblically than "Should a woman be the pastor or teacher of men?"

I believe Jesus was Christ, and that he died for my sins. Beyond that, it is academic conjecture.

No. If it is academic conjecture then you have no good reason to believe in Jesus at all.

That Bible you thump is a material possession.

The paper, ink, cover, printing, human words,....? Yes. They are a material gift from God... that reveals His divine will and way exactly as He chose to deliver it to me and every other believer.

The voice you hear when you read it, I hope, is the Holy Spirit, 1 of 3 forms of GOD.

His voice we hear through it.

But He is not one of 3 forms of God. He is God. Modalism is not biblical.

I hear constant denial of the Holy Spirit in this thread with suggestions that the Paper Bible is the "objective" authority.

No. What you hear is the denial that the Holy Spirit is revealing new truth to you... and especially truth that contradicts the truth recorded by the inspired writers of scripture. Writers who God marked by signs.

"Objective" is a science word, not a faith word.

Nope. Truth is objective whether spiritual or material.

If you deny the Holy Spirit, you deny Christ and God.

That is basically where we have been driving with you. The Holy Spirit spoke through the scriptures. They self affirm. They were written by men chosen of God. They are affirmed by God through results and preservation and the fruits of faith/obedience in/to them.

None of these things apply to that voice you say you hear... that apparently agrees with you rather than the Bible.

"Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit" the only unforgiveable sin.

Yes. Ascribing things of the Spirit to someone else (particularly Satan but also Satan influenced sinners).

Please stop it.

You treat this like a scientific treatise, but I suggest you just shelve it and meditate. Wherever your faith leads you, is the best you're gonna get.

No thanks. I see in you that simple things truly confound those wise in themselves. Meditation has a proper place... but that place is not in the stead of scripture.

 

[JRG39402]

Women can preach. They just shouldn't be the leader of the church. Just like God set aside men for the spiritual leadership of the family (for whatever reason, I don't know), he did the same for the spiritual family of the church. The leader is just there for practical purposes. My pastor is no more "important" than any other church member. However, remember in the family the wife still has crucial imput. She can also do so behind a pulpit. Just not in a permenant leadership position. Why God decided that, I don't know. But that is how it is.

 

[Gail Owens]

Hi there I'm new to this board so if I don't come across right please excuse me. I can speak from experience. I used to be an assistant Pastor myself, I was on my way to Bible College to co-lead a massive Church In England, when God stepped in and showed me that is unbiblical for women to Pastor a Church. I really tried to get round it manipulate Scripture but at the end of the day after much soul searching and heartache, I gave it up. I know it is hard for some women to accept; but it is not about our feelings it is being obedient to God and his word. The Bible is clear no woman is to usurp authority over a man.

I have recently also come into the knowledge of obedince (submission) to my Husband, I can tell tell you, that when I tried to take the lead in the family my marriage was a mess on the brink of divorce. One day I felt like walking out on my husband and I was reading the Bible and God showed me about submission to my husband and his headship over me. To be honest I am really fortunate I have a wonderful patient husband who is easy to submit to, but it wan't easy for me to do. However my marriage has been transformed, My walk with The Lord is wonderful, I have grown into a much nicer person.

I wouldn't go back now and be a rebellious woman trying to take any authority in the Church, or try to be the leader in my home. The Bible must be obeyed it is the bottom line, if we step out of God's order we suffer emotionally, spiritually. Obeience brings greater blessings. I think we women have it easy. Men have it hard.
It takes humility and a strong willed woman to be obedient than disobeint there is nothing worse my husband says "than a gobby feminist".

 

[TFC123]

First, quit picking on Paul. Paul did more to further respect of woman than anyone at that period in history.

Woman in Jewish and Greek society where totally demeaned. A husband could get rid of his wife for any reason. Paul, in, Ephesions may talk of submission but is is not servile submission it is love. Jesus was submissive to the Fater, was that deameaing, no, it was love. Paul tells the men to love their wifes as God loves the Church. Men, Paul says should be willing to give up their lifes for their wifes. Bythe society standards in those times saying that he would be considered a feminest sympathizer. Go over the chapter in Ephesions and look at the Greek used for the wifes love for the husband then look at the greek used for the husbands love for his wife. Think about it. And put it in historical context not todays.

Finally I think the real reason for God's prohibition against woman pastors was his foreknowledge of Joyce Meyer.

[TFC123 since you are no longer a Baptist (now CMA) you are not allowed to post in the Baptist Only Sections of the BB. Please restrict your post to the sections that are open to All Christians.]

[ March 17, 2006, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[SuperBaptist]

ScottJ - "Hebrews 11:1 calls it evidence... IOW's, "knowledge"."
"Christ promises "light" (ie. knowledge) through faith, John 12."


You have twisted the Word beyond recognition. First of all, "evidence" is not "knowledge". Look it up. As a Philosophy/Logic Teacher, I will simply say you are wrong!

Secondly, the "light" isn't "knowledge" either. If you had read the bible, you'd know that "light" is "truth", Jesus is the way, the truth and the light. Truth is bigger than knowledge could ever be. Truth is a philosophical term, knowledge is nothing but scientific fact, big difference.

And Joyce Meyer---Red Herring. What because Jim Bakker was a homosexual, men shouldn't be pastors. You, get real. This is the worst Logic I have seen today and among my students are Freshmen.

By the way, Paul did get rid of his wife; either she died or he divorced her. He was a San Hedron (requiring marriage) yet he tells people to "be like him", single.

I am giving him a break. He was a normal guy, just like me. NOT a disciple of Christ which is the the authority the other authors have. Hwe even refused to study with the disciples themselves because they rebuked him. They sent an emissary to lead him back to the True Christian teachings and he perverted the opportunity.

Get your facts straight. He even referred to himeself as our "Father", directly against the teachings of Christ.

I am a Baptist not because of Paul, but because of Christ. he is my authority. I have yet to find anyone to question the RED LETTER teachings, but Paul has led the church into such devisiveness, it threatens to destroy us.

PS- Just because I think you're wrong doesn't mean I don't love you anyway.

 

[TFC123]

MrSuper Baptist,
Were you referring to my post? Are you for real are you saying Paul was not an Apostle. He refused to study with the Apostles??? Are you a super baptist, maybe thats why I'm not. You give Baptists a bad name [***personal attack removed].

Where does it say Paul had a wife and got rid of her?
Also Mr Super Baptist Paul was not a San Hedron or Sandedrin spelled properly my sixth grade student have better logic than you. He was a Pharessee, know what that is? That required marrage, but since it says nothing in the Bible either way married or unmarried maybe God did not feel that was importaint.

I never said Paul was or was not married neither does the Bible which according to you I don't read but you do. It's must be great to be able to read people the way you do. Ooops there's a log in your eye.


The point I was trying to make is that Christianity did more for women in that culture than any religion or person did.

You are one closed minded individual. I was not venerating Paul.

Where did he refer to himself as our Father??

Why would God select such a person to write most of the New testament. And where did he learn so much of Jesus, the apostles, other apostles, remember the Bible says Paul was an Apostle even Peter confirms this but you don't seem to think so.

You have to read more than the red letters buddy. Oh maybe picture bibles only come like that.

You may be the first person I ever heard say Paul led the church into devisiveness(your spelling) and that he questioned the red letter teachings.

As for the Joyce Meyers remark. I was not referrig to, nor have thought of Mr. Baker in years. The remark was meant in jest, if you had a sense of humor [***personal attack removed] you may have caught that.

And you are a teacher? I feel sorry for your students. You are so off base.

I am not wrong and the more I see posts by people like you the less I can truly say I love them.

This board has done more harm to my faith in people who call themselves Christian than a weekend in Tiajuana. Now I realize why I do not go to Baptist church any more.

[***personal attack removed]

[***According to BB Posting Rule 4 Personal Attacks will not be tolerated. Debate the issues and do not attack the person holding the opposite view. Likewise, since you are no longer a Baptist (now CMA) you are not allowed to post in the Baptist Only Sections of the BB. Please restrict your post to the sections that are open to All Christians.]

[ March 17, 2006, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by Gail Owens:
Hi there I'm new to this board so if I don't come across right please excuse me. I can speak from experience. I used to be an assistant Pastor myself, I was on my way to Bible College to co-lead a massive Church In England, when God stepped in and showed me that is unbiblical for women to Pastor a Church. I really tried to get round it manipulate Scripture but at the end of the day after much soul searching and heartache, I gave it up. I know it is hard for some women to accept; but it is not about our feelings it is being obedient to God and his word. The Bible is clear no woman is to usurp authority over a man.

I have recently also come into the knowledge of obedince (submission) to my Husband, I can tell tell you, that when I tried to take the lead in the family my marriage was a mess on the brink of divorce. One day I felt like walking out on my husband and I was reading the Bible and God showed me about submission to my husband and his headship over me. To be honest I am really fortunate I have a wonderful patient husband who is easy to submit to, but it wan't easy for me to do. However my marriage has been transformed, My walk with The Lord is wonderful, I have grown into a much nicer person.

I wouldn't go back now and be a rebellious woman trying to take any authority in the Church, or try to be the leader in my home. The Bible must be obeyed it is the bottom line, if we step out of God's order we suffer emotionally, spiritually. Obeience brings greater blessings. I think we women have it easy. Men have it hard.
It takes humility and a strong willed woman to be obedient than disobeint there is nothing worse my husband says "than a gobby feminist".

Hello Gail,

Very well spoken words of wisdom.

Bible-Boy

 

[Bible-boy]

Originally posted by SuperBaptist:
Evidence that Paul did not meet Jesus, and was unaware of most of the miracles associated with him, is presented in this letter written to a Christian acquaintance.

“The...Pauline letters...are so completely silent concerning the events that were later recorded in the gospels as to suggest that these events were not known to Paul, who, however, could not have been ignorant of them if they had really occurred.

“These letters have no allusion to the parents of Jesus, let alone to the virgin birth. They never refer to a place of birth (for example, by calling him 'of Nazareth'). They give no indication of the time or place of his earthly existence. They do not refer to his trial before a Roman official, nor to Jerusalem as the place of execution. They mention neither John the Baptist, nor Judas, nor Peter's denial of his master. (They do, of course, mention Peter, but do not imply that he, any more than Paul himself, had known Jesus while he had been alive.)

“These letters also fail to mention any miracles Jesus is supposed to have worked, a particularly striking omission, since, according to the gospels, he worked so many...

“Another striking feature of Paul's letters is that one could never gather from them that Jesus had been an ethical teacher... on only one occasion does he appeal to the authority of Jesus to support an ethical teaching which the gospels also represent Jesus as having delivered.”--G.A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (pp. 22-23).

Paul was writing about Jesus twenty or more years before the synoptic authors' gospel stories were written. If Paul knew Jesus was

born of a virgin,
baptized by John
called his "son" by the Lord
transfigured on the mountain

and

walked on water
stilled storms
converted water to wine
fed nine thousand people on handfuls of bread
cured the deaf and blind
drove demons into a herd of pigs
raised a man from the dead

and was

betrayed by Judas
denied by Peter
abandoned by his disciples

and

left an empty tomb behind for Mary to find,

then why in the world would Paul not have written down this information somewhere, if not in his letters to the churches and certain individuals, if he had known about them? Are these events not among the most astonishing for mankind since the beginning of time?

Apologists say that we should forgive Paul for not describing these events in his letters to individual churches and in some cases to individuals, because we should assume that they already knew about them. Even if that were true, what about the rest of the world? What about those people in Israel who had not yet heard the about the many wondrous events listed above? Rather than rely on the propagation of what you believe are the oral stories of the many events described above, don't you think that Paul would have written other letters, or even his own "gospels", for those people, and for you and me, if he had really known about these events, if indeed they had even occurred? Don't you think he would want to put down in more permanent form--on paper--a record of the most remarkable events since the dawn of time? Why would he let mankind wait twenty years for Mark, Matthew, and Luke to do this?

A five-round debate on the silence of Paul was conducted on the between me and the pseudonymous J P Holding on the Theology Web. In defending against claims that Paul would have wished to put the miracle stories in writing if he had known about them, Holding asserts that the oral propagation of stories in that time was a highly structured, well –disciplined art which ensured that accuracy was maintained, and thus there was no need for a written record. I will let readers consult the debate on the Theology Web if they're interested in seeing what my response there was. I would, however, like to add one more thing to support my argument. I forget who wrote the words below.

In those times, as now, it is generally expected that stories which propagate only orally will be changed to suit the needs of the story-teller's audience, as well as to further the aims and agenda of the story-teller. Wherever and whenever verbal accuracy was highly valued and expected, it was within the context of the existence and reliance upon the ultimate authority—the written text. Thus, without the written proof-text, orally transmitted stories were assumed to be unreliable.

Note added March 25, 2004:

I'm as firm a believer as anyone that Paul didn't know about the historical
Jesus, and therefore that the gospel stories were not extant in the time of
Paul, but would have been if they were true. However, the true-believer has a
comparatively easy way to explain why Paul made so few references to the
historical Jesus, in my opinion. They will say that the people of that time were
steeped in the gospel stories--they were stories deeply ingrained in the minds of
everyone. Thus, Paul may have focused on comparatively minor issues relating
to Jesus and Christianity, knowing that he could take for granted that his
listeners and readers already were well familiar with the Jesus stories. It might
have been then as it was in discussing the Lincoln assassination to an
audience in 1885; twenty years after the fact, no one would need to be reminded that
Lincoln was president, led the Union Army to victory in a great war, or even
indeed that that was a great war, and was assassinated by an actor. Everyone
already knew those important facts backward and forward, and so the speaker
might concentrate on more mundane, less important issues. That's how it might
have been, they will say, and that argument is not as easy to counter as
skeptics would like to believe.

Also, perhaps Paul DID write and speak at great length about the historical
Jesus, but those speeches and writings were lost.


This was originally on the web at:
http://sol.sci.uop.edu/~jfalward/What_Did_Paul_Know.htm


Admittedly, Pauline and Petrine branches of Christianity are equally guilty of their discrimination against women in a modern day when women are just as educated and have just as important a soul.

It is embarrassing that any Christian stands behind these outdated arguments.

Please, do you not eat pork, shellfish?

Things change, the church must. And the Word of God lives!

This is all nice deconstructionist theory. However, most are arguments from silence (a formal fallacy). It is true that Paul never mentions the Virgin Birth of Christ. However, it is wrong to assert that he was ignorant of the fact just because he never mentioned its happening. There may well be other reasons why Paul chose not to mention the Virgin Birth. He may not have considered it relevant to his audience (or the purpose of his writing at the time). He may have known that his audience at the time was fully aware of the event (this goes for all the miracles listed above). It may be correct to argue that Paul may have been ignorant of the Virgin Birth because he does not mention it. However, it is a fallacy to say Paul was ignorant of the Virgin Birth of Christ. I would expect a Philosophy/Logic teacher to know and recognize the difference between these two statements and not fall for the fallacy. It is clear that Paul was aware of Christ's resurrection because he talks about it.

 

[SuperBaptist]

If you read the whole comment you would see that I presented arguments on both sides of the issue. As I said the apologists for Paul expalin away his departure from Christ's story by explaining he "may have known, but just didn't write about it."

No one addresses how divisive Paul's writings have been, or maybe no one has noticed. If you spend as much time witnessing as I do, you find it is so easy to defend Christ's direct teachings as described by his witnesses. But the minute women bring up Paul, I run. I don't defend him as "authorized" or inspired, nor do I assume he was trying to start his own religion outside of Christ, any more than I am.

Again, I say the RED LETTERS are so flawless as to demand my agreement and faith. It is amazing how few people have had the courage to consider the possibility of a mistake in such a large collection of writings, that MEN in jolly old England decided was the inspired Word of God.

Meanwhile, I'll reserve judgement and pose these questions to the Holy Spirit who answers them in languages other than KJ English.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by SuperBaptist:


No one addresses how divisive Paul's writings have been, or maybe no one has noticed.

Yes... and? God commands division. Division from sin. He isn't apologetic about it either.

God's way is right because it is His way. He has every right to demand obedience whether you happen to agree with His way or not. God established an order between the genders. He didn't ask your permission nor wait on your approval... and did so full well knowing that you would object.

IOW's, God had no respect whatsoever for your vain protests of His decisions.

If you spend as much time witnessing as I do, you find it is so easy to defend Christ's direct teachings as described by his witnesses.

If you have a difficulty with Paul then you probably aren't presenting the Christ of the Bible the way He intended.

But the minute women bring up Paul, I run.

That says a great deal more about you than Paul.

I don't defend him as "authorized" or inspired, nor do I assume he was trying to start his own religion outside of Christ, any more than I am.

He wasn't trying to start his own religion. You are whether consciously or not.

You don't have to defend him. He claimed inspiration... and Peter ascribed it to him as well... BTW, neither of them ascribed it to you.

Again, I say the RED LETTERS are so flawless as to demand my agreement and faith. It is amazing how few people have had the courage to consider the possibility of a mistake in such a large collection of writings, that MEN in jolly old England decided was the inspired Word of God.

The amazing thing about this is that it reveals an ignorance about the canon of scripture. One that would be completely unexpected if you were as studied as you claim.

Meanwhile, I'll reserve judgement and pose these questions to the Holy Spirit who answers them in languages other than KJ English.

Your problem is that the other faithful versions affirm the KJV... as does overwhelming historical evidence for the text of the Bible.

 

[IveyLeaguer]

SuperBaptist:

I could easily do without any of Paul's books having been included in the Bible .... Paul did not meet Jesus .... I don't assign "infallibility" to anyone whose writings are included in the Holy Bible .... salvation never changed, only our understanding of it. Our understanding continues to change. We have a Living Word .... We seek the truth, but I question those that claim to have found it .... That Bible you thump is a material possession .... (Paul) was a normal guy, just like me. NOT a disciple of Christ ....

Your numerous theological problems are rooted in the age-old question of Genesis 3. "Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, 'Indeed, has God said,' ". Before this moment there had never been any questions, wonderings, or dilemmas. No queries. Only belief and understanding of what God had SAID, of His WORDS.

"Has God said", i.e., the questioning of God's Word, is the vehicle Satan has used and will continue to use as he finishes out his global, apostate kingdom. It is simplistic, but POWERFUL and its deception is even more effective on us than it was on Eve because our human nature is fallen from birth. For a creature to question what God has said, he must first exercise the right to sit in judgment of his Creator.

What you have done is the same thing the subject of this thread, feminism, has done - subjected God's Word to human judgment.

Paul has led the church into such devisiveness, it threatens to destroy us.

NO. God, through Paul and other writers of infallible, Holy Spirit inspired Scripture, is currently separating the wheat from the tares.

No one addresses how divisive Paul's writings have been...

They are only divisive for those who don't believe them or, worse, have the gall to sit in judgment of them and their Author, God the Holy Spirit.

... I say the RED LETTERS are flawless ... I have yet to find anyone to question the RED LETTER teachings ...

You will find that someone the instant you look into a mirror. Try out some of these RED LETTER teachings (caps mine):

"Begone, Satan: for it is WRITTEN ... you have HEARD that it was SAID ... For this is he, of whom it is WRITTEN ... Have you not READ what David did ... Or have you not READ in the law ... You hypocrites, well did Isaiah PROPHESY of you, SAYING ..."

and again,

"Have you not READ, that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female ... It is WRITTEN, My house shall be called ... Yea, have you never READ, out of the mouth ... Did you never READ IN THE SCRIPTURES ... Heaven and earth will pass away, but My WORDS will never pass away ... it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for ONE STROKE OF A LETTER in the law to drop out ... And you have not HIS WORD abiding in you ... He that believes on me, as the SCRIPTURE HAS SAID ..."

and once more,

"SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES, for .. they testify of Me".

"SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES, for..YOU THINK you have eternal life ..... How then does David IN THE SPIRIT call him Lord, SAYING (writing) ..... But if you believe not HIS (Moses) WRITINGS, how shall you believe MY WORDS?"


You, my friend, are in GRAVE DANGER. You confront and contradict the very Holy Spirit you claim to so admire, worship, and follow. I beg you to repent before God, and I pray that He will help you - your life is at stake. There are two things you need to know right away:

1) There is a COUNTERFEIT Holy Spirit that is very real and

2) God the Holy Spirit will NEVER contradict or be in opposition to God's written Word. NEVER. On that, you may confidently stake your life.

Godspeed.

[ March 17, 2006, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: IveyLeaguer ]

 

[Johnv]

How come when someone starts a thread entitled "How do I love my neighbor as Christ commanded", the thread gets, at best, one or two pages of responses; but when the thread is entitled "women preachers", it goes one and on for seven or more pages?

I think we have our priorities all wrong.

 

[Scott J]

...or perhaps we don't disagree so much on how to love our neighbors... or at least don't think we do...

 

[SuperBaptist]

Men are still power-hungry and refuse to share any of it with women. That's why so many are here fighting for their right to continue their bigotry and repression. Even some women have learned to hate themselves to satisfy their men.

 

[saturneptune]

SuperBaptist,
I do not rely on the men in jolly ole England to tell me Pauls letters are divinely inspired. Pauls conversion experience tells me the letters should be in the Bible. You have a lot of good, thought provoking ideas, and I am glad someone your age is taking such an interest in the Christian faith.

Scott,
You dont have a clue about canon history or historical data for the Scripture.

 

[SuperBaptist]

Originally posted by saturneptune:
SuperBaptist,
I do not rely on the men in jolly ole England to tell me Pauls letters are divinely inspired. Pauls conversion experience tells me the letters should be in the Bible. You have a lot of good, thought provoking ideas, and I am glad someone your age is taking such an interest in the Christian faith.

Scott,
You dont have a clue about canon history or historical data for the Scripture.

My age? 45? (My Pic is a joke) I have to use smaller words, myself in order to let SFIC understand me

You know, us old folks are kinda slow...

 

[saturneptune]

Bro Super,
I am sorry about that. Im only 8 years ahead of you. I see you are a professor, and since I am an electronics tech at the postal service, I am sure your wording and understanding of the Bible is much better than mine.

 

[SuperBaptist]

Here, I just talk with my fingers. I have noticed some here talk with just one finger though.

I even see a few high fives, like they are playing a game. Men will be... boys, I guess.