Are There Any Conservative Christians Our There?

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
Incognitus
Noob
Noob
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:46 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
Sstavix wrote:Yeah, I think I have to apologize. I may have muddied things up a bit. Blame it on the (election) season. :wink: When I read "conservative Christians," my thoughts immediately went to politics.

So back to the topic at hand, Incognitus, what do you mean by "conservative" Christian? As in those that strive to find and maintain a church as it existed when Christ walked the Earth? Or those that hold to tradition and try to remain steadfast in an ever-changing (and possibly, in their perspective, ever-darkening) world?

If so, then I am in an interesting category, indeed! Being a member of the Church of Latter-day Saints, I am a member of a Christian church that strives to restore the organizational structure that existed in Christ's time. We have a prophet, twelve apostles, teachers, bishops, deacons and other offices that were in the church that He organized. However, many other Christians disagree with the LDS church - or even claim that it isn't Christian - because it's a departure from both the Catholic and Protestant traditions, and doesn't adhere to the Nicene creed.

So by many definitions, it's conservative, but by others it isn't. Come to think of it, that's how some view my Libertarian / Constitutionalist stance, too. :wink: Maybe it is about politics....
I am actually a former Seventh-day Adventist, and find that that church has a lot in common with the Mormon church.

Here is where I stand: I don't believe God would ever allow His word to be lost or corrupted, thus needed to be "restored." I believe the Almighty is omnipotent enough to preserve His truth and words for all times, never allowing it to be corrupted. I am a King James Bible Believer, and that is my final authority.

It's dangerous ground to go on raw tradition, but equally enough, when new doctrine comes into play that never existed throughout history, that is equally dangerous... Remember Satan is the originator of new doctrine. He questioned God's original command not to eat of the fruit, saying "Ye shall not surely die."

Our influence must come from the 66 Book of the (KJV) Bible alone, even history can be shaky ground. This is another debatable issue, but I believe if you pray and research both sides of the issue, you will see that every Bible published after 1880 have some serious problems, when comparing it to the KJV, which is based upon a trusted manuscript used by godly men in history preceding the KJV. In fact, all English Bible before 1881 were based upon the Textus Receptus (Recieved Text) which has its origins in antioch, which is where the T.R. has its origins. (Acts 11:26)


Nevertheless, to answer your question: I would say a conservative Christian is one who holds to the original faith of the Bible, the faith of the disciples, not allowing new ideas or beliefs into the church, and holding to conservative values. I think tradition does play a role, but again, at the same time, tradition is not our final authority, but the Bible alone. I suppose there is a line to be drawn so far before you're considered a liberal Christian. More conservative Christian women for instance, tend to wear long skirts, no makeup, no jewelry, etc. I think this is a great idea, it's very modest, but you also should be careful of putting a burden on someone of something that is not explicitly mentioned in the Bible as a commandment. The Bible says for women to be modest, it doesn't go into details if that means absolutely no makeup. This may be an example of an area of Christian liberty. I don't think Christian women should wear short shorts, bikinis, and all kinds of jewelry or earrings. That's where I stand.
User avatar
Incognitus
Noob
Noob
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:46 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
Woiv wrote:
Sstavix wrote:So back to the topic at hand, Incognitus, what do you mean by "conservative" Christian? As in those that strive to find and maintain a church as it existed when Christ walked the Earth? Or those that hold to tradition and try to remain steadfast in an ever-changing (and possibly, in their perspective, ever-darkening) world?
A conservative christian is a term to identify christ followers who tend to follow conservative values. Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government and also traditional american values. I just know realize your asking his opinion on what "conservative christian" means. Thats my opinion, and if incognitus believes the same, he can quote me and agree, or simply say his own words. :wink:
I think this is a pretty good definition of a conservative Christian, thanks for your input.
User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2950
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.
Contact:
Incognitus wrote: Here is where I stand: I don't believe God would ever allow His word to be lost or corrupted, thus needed to be "restored."
I would have to disagree with you there. Yes, He would have liked for His word to never be lost or distorted... but He did put it into the hands of mankind. And mankind is flawed. Even with the King James Version, there have been books that have been removed (see the Apocryphal texts) and efforts to edit it over the centuries (Martin Luther's attempts to edit out women, seeing them as "ungodly.") I believe that this is the reason why there are discrepancies in the Bible (e.g. Judas' death) - and I also believe that these discrepancies are clues from Him that we are supposed to consider and pray about what we read, rather than blindly accept the scriptures as 100% true and accurate. The Scriptures are an excellent source for material to understand His will and our role in His plan... but if you want real answers, why not go directly to the source? Pray about it and see what answers you receive. :)
Incognitus wrote: More conservative Christian women for instance, tend to wear long skirts, no makeup, no jewelry, etc. ... I don't think Christian women should wear short shorts, bikinis, and all kinds of jewelry or earrings.
The concept of Christian modesty has always made me wonder, though. As you mentioned, the Bible isn't specific about what constitutes modesty. For example, in some African countries, it's considered to be perfectly modest and acceptable for women to wander around without a shirt on - but they had better not dare to show their ankles! So do you think there should be one standard that applies to all Christians? Or should it vary between cultural preferences and norms?
User avatar
Incognitus
Noob
Noob
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:46 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
Sstavix wrote:
Incognitus wrote: Here is where I stand: I don't believe God would ever allow His word to be lost or corrupted, thus needed to be "restored."
I would have to disagree with you there. Yes, He would have liked for His word to never be lost or distorted... but He did put it into the hands of mankind. And mankind is flawed. Even with the King James Version, there have been books that have been removed (see the Apocryphal texts) and efforts to edit it over the centuries (Martin Luther's attempts to edit out women, seeing them as "ungodly.") I believe that this is the reason why there are discrepancies in the Bible (e.g. Judas' death) - and I also believe that these discrepancies are clues from Him that we are supposed to consider and pray about what we read, rather than blindly accept the scriptures as 100% true and accurate. The Scriptures are an excellent source for material to understand His will and our role in His plan... but if you want real answers, why not go directly to the source? Pray about it and see what answers you receive. :)
What do you mean about Judas' death discrepencies? Do think of the possibility that two "differing" accounts can still both be correct.

Consider this: In a murder case at a court of law, there are two witnesses. The one witness says he spotted the gunman in a red car with two men (one in the passenger seat, one in the driver). Another witness says he saw the red car with only one man in the driver's seat. Both accounts are, hypothetically, correct accounts. The second witness simply took special note or interest in his witness of the suspicious driver in the red car before this hypothetical murder occurred. Likewise, the same is true of "conflicting" gospel accounts. If Matthew wrote about something that Luke or John didn't it's because it's Matthew's account. Going back to our hypothetical murder case, a third witness could show up and tell you that the red car was a Ford Focus, and there was a third man in the back of the car with a loaded rifle. This doesn't take away the testimony of the first two witnesses, but simply ADDS more information to the accounts that we already have; likewise, the same is true of the four gospel account; their testimonies do not conflict.

Yes, Scripture is written by fallible men, but the words of God Himself is that "ALL scripture (the 66 books of the Bible) is given by inspiration of God (Greek can be literally rendered "God-breathed") and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16.

The words of Christ Himself: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35

Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Isaiah 40:8 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Another proof is this, Isaiah is referred to as the "little Bible." There are 66 chapters in Isaiah, and each of those chapters corresponds with the book, and is related to it in some way from what I hear. For example, Isaiah 1 correlates to Genesis. Isaiah 66 should correlate to Revelation, and whatever book of the Bible you refer to should correlate to the appropriate chapter.

I don't think the Apocrypha is Scripture. Realize that Satan is a counterfeiter, and causes / inspires men to counterfeit God's words. Consider the Gnostic Gospels, the Quran, and other religious "texts." They are all blasphemous!!

I believe God is Sovereign and would not suffer His word to be corrupted, thus needed for His people to be in search for a "new" revelations or "new" Scripture to trust in. Go ahead and state your position though and I might be able to shed some light on it for you. :)
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
I don't mean to interfere with Sstavix and Incognitus' discussion but I'd like to comment here, if I may.
Incognitus wrote: What do you mean about Judas' death discrepencies? Do think of the possibility that two "differing" accounts can still both be correct.
Sort of. It's true that sometimes differing accounts provide different points of view of the same truth. On the other hand, there are times when the contradictions present different sets of facts that can NOT both be accurate.

It's interesting that you mention the notion of the two witnesses, because from the Mormon point of view, that's exactly what the Bible and the Book of Mormon are... two witnesses of the same truth.
Incognitus wrote: Yes, Scripture is written by fallible men, but the words of God Himself is that "ALL scripture (the 66 books of the Bible) is given by inspiration of God (Greek can be literally rendered "God-breathed") and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." 2 Timothy 3:16.
Great verse, and while true, does not guarantee that said scripture won't ever be muddled or interfered with by men.
Incognitus wrote: The words of Christ Himself: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35
Also true. Keep in mind that Sstavix (and Mormons in general) do not claim that the Bible is inaccurate, or not the word of God, only that it has some errors in it as a result of centuries of copying, editing, politics and so on. No one has claimed that Jesus' words have passed away.
Incognitus wrote: Psalm 12:6-7: "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Which indeed He does, but scribes... not so much.
Incognitus wrote: Isaiah 40:8 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
Which indeed they shall... but no thanks to history.
Incognitus wrote: Another proof is this, Isaiah is referred to as the "little Bible." There are 66 chapters in Isaiah, and each of those chapters corresponds with the book, and is related to it in some way from what I hear. For example, Isaiah 1 correlates to Genesis. Isaiah 66 should correlate to Revelation, and whatever book of the Bible you refer to should correlate to the appropriate chapter.
And does it, in fact, do so? It would be interesting to study that.
Incognitus wrote: I don't think the Apocrypha is Scripture. Realize that Satan is a counterfeiter, and causes / inspires men to counterfeit God's words. Consider the Gnostic Gospels, the Quran, and other religious "texts." They are all blasphemous!!
Only Catholics regard the Apocrypha as scripture these days, but it's important to note that until the 16th Century, what we now know as the Apocrypha was considered canon by most, if not all Christendom.
Incognitus wrote: I believe God is Sovereign and would not suffer His word to be corrupted, thus needed for His people to be in search for a "new" revelations or "new" Scripture to trust in. Go ahead and state your position though and I might be able to shed some light on it for you. :)
Or vice versa, perhaps. :wink:
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2950
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.
Contact:
Incognitus wrote: What do you mean about Judas' death discrepencies? Do think of the possibility that two "differing" accounts can still both be correct.
I've heard others try to justify it this way, but I don't buy it. Matthew indicates that Judas hung himself. But in Acts, it seems to indicate that he died in some sort of farming accident, possibly being run over by his own plow. I don't see how both instances could be true.
Incognitus wrote: Another proof is this, Isaiah is referred to as the "little Bible." There are 66 chapters in Isaiah, and each of those chapters corresponds with the book, and is related to it in some way from what I hear. For example, Isaiah 1 correlates to Genesis. Isaiah 66 should correlate to Revelation, and whatever book of the Bible you refer to should correlate to the appropriate chapter.
This smacks suspiciously of numerology to me. :?
Incognitus wrote:
I don't think the Apocrypha is Scripture.
You don't think. As AF has pointed out, some churches do consider these books (written before Christ's time) are scripture. Have you looked into the Books of the Apocrypha yourself? Studied and prayed about them?
Incognitus wrote: I believe God is Sovereign and would not suffer His word to be corrupted, thus needed for His people to be in search for a "new" revelations or "new" Scripture to trust in. Go ahead and state your position though and I might be able to shed some light on it for you. :)
In some ways, I used to be in the position that I would agree with you. There were no new revelations or scriptures given to us. But several years ago, God Himself told me otherwise. He asked me, pretty much point blank, to join the LDS church. I didn't understand why at the time, especially given my upbringing, but I didn't want to be the kind of person to tell Heavenly Father "no." But if you want to discuss my own conversion experience, send me a PM. I'm of the mindset that these kinds of experiences are unique to everyone, so not everyone will come to God in the same fashion. :)

One question that popped into my mind earlier - as a conservative Christian, how do you regard women and the church? Many Christian churches - including the Catholic and LDS ones - don't allow women to hold any priesthood titles. Other Christian churches have a different approach (in fact, one of my friends is a Pastor in the Presbyterian church, and she has no issues with gay marriage in her church, either). Where do you stand on this issue?
Webkins1
Noob
Noob
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:34 pm
Contact:
I am conservative.
User avatar
Incognitus
Noob
Noob
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:46 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
Sstavix wrote:One question that popped into my mind earlier - as a conservative Christian, how do you regard women and the church? Many Christian churches - including the Catholic and LDS ones - don't allow women to hold any priesthood titles. Other Christian churches have a different approach (in fact, one of my friends is a Pastor in the Presbyterian church, and she has no issues with gay marriage in her church, either). Where do you stand on this issue?
I believe women are not allowed to preach, but to be in subjection to their husband. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35, 1 Timothy 2:11, 1 Peter 3:1) I strongly oppose gay marriage.
Last edited by Incognitus on Wed Sep 28, 2016 12:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Woiv
Minecraft Server Admin
Posts: 875
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2014 8:02 pm
Are you human?: Not likely
Location: Florida
Contact:
Incognitus wrote:I strongly oppose gay marriage.
I agree.
Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, he will make your paths straight. Proverbs 3:5-6

o CCGR forum moderator.
User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2950
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.
Contact:
Incognitus wrote: I believe women are not allowed to preach, but to be in subjection to their husband. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35, 1 Timothy 2:11, 1 Peter 3:1)
I can understand the approach of not allowing into priesthood or spiritual leadership roles - there are many churches (and faiths, even) that adhere to that. But if you're of the mentality of "be quiet, the menfolk are speaking," you'll find that approach won't score you many points here.

Little history lesson here - this site was founded by an awesome husband and wife team. And although he doesn't spend too much time in the forums (he's got a family to support and products to review, after all), she is extremely vocal and adept at maintaining this site, its Twitter and Facebook feeds, Steam curator account and Twitch stream. She's also the "public face" of the site, as it were, whenever interviews take place, or even the recent interfaith conference that Christ Centered Gamer recently attended. Christ Centered Gamer wouldn't be as awesome as it is today if not for her role in keeping it going. This is more than just a fan site to them - it's a calling, a ministry.

Great things can be accomplished when good, Godly women stand for what they believe in. Look at Ruth and Esther in the Old Testament. It's as relevant now as it was then.
Incognitus wrote:I strongly oppose gay marriage.
I'm opposed to gay marriage as well... in the church. And I'm adamantly opposed to any faith being forced to perform gay marriage ceremonies if it is against their tenants. This means that I would even stand with the Muslims if a heavy handed government said "you must perform same-sex marriages in your mosques." People should be allowed to worship as they see fit, as long as it isn't actively harming other people (no human sacrifices, please.)

If the government wants to perform same-sex marriages, that's up to the government. I don't think it's binding in any spiritual sense, so let those who don't believe have their fun. As long as they aren't interfering with those who take marriage in a more serious light, then what's the harm?

As for my Presbyterian friend, she understands that we're different denominations. In fact, it seemed like she regarded my wife and I as good friends. Since we weren't members of her congregation, she could let her hair down, as it were, and treat us as equals, rather than having to maintain her composure as the shepherd of her flock. We had many fun, interesting discussions about doctrine and spirituality, too. Yes, we have some differences in terms of scripture (and politics - she posted something to her FB page about how Clinton was "the most qualified candidate for the Presidency - ever." My kneejerk reaction probably would have earned me a suspension from these forums. :lol: ). But that doesn't mean that we can't be friends.
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
Sstavix wrote: If the government wants to perform same-sex marriages, that's up to the government. I don't think it's binding in any spiritual sense, so let those who don't believe have their fun. As long as they aren't interfering with those who take marriage in a more serious light, then what's the harm?
I hate to sidetrack, but I'd like to take a stab at this question.

The harm is that a culture inevitably impacts the members of the Church who live in it. If evidence is needed, just look at how many people left the LDS Church because it refused to go along with the cultural tide and open up to same-sex marriage. When "normal" for a culture includes ever greater deviations from morality and righteousness, inevitably it serves to even further isolate the Church, makes missionary work that much more difficult, and entrenches people into a lifestyle in such a way as to make it more difficult to get out of it.

Which is easier to get out of, a simple same-sex romantic relationship, or a committed, legally binding marriage arrangement? If such a person feels the Holy Spirit tugging them toward putting that behind them and embracing the Gospel, do they really need yet another hurdle to overcome? And that's a big one. To my knowledge, no state in the USA has a provision for divorce in the event of a religious conversion by one or both parties.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2950
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.
Contact:
ArcticFox wrote: The harm is that a culture inevitably impacts the members of the Church who live in it. If evidence is needed, just look at how many people left the LDS Church because it refused to go along with the cultural tide and open up to same-sex marriage.
I think that this could have been a challenge to the Church, then - part of separating the wheat from the chaff, as it were. God has made it abundantly clear where He stands on the issue - now where do you stand? With God? Or with the world?

(That's the general "you." I'm not singling you out, bro! :) )
ArcticFox wrote: When "normal" for a culture includes ever greater deviations from morality and righteousness, inevitably it serves to even further isolate the Church, makes missionary work that much more difficult, and entrenches people into a lifestyle in such a way as to make it more difficult to get out of it.
That is true, but those cultural shifts aren't just about gay marriage. Look at Putin's recent crackdown on proselytizing in Russia, or many Islamic nations where preaching anything but Islam merits a death sentence.
ArcticFox wrote:To my knowledge, no state in the USA has a provision for divorce in the event of a religious conversion by one or both parties.
All the more reason for the government to get out of the marriage business, in my opinion, but that's another topic for debate. :wink:
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
Sstavix wrote: I think that this could have been a challenge to the Church, then - part of separating the wheat from the chaff, as it were. God has made it abundantly clear where He stands on the issue - now where do you stand? With God? Or with the world?

(That's the general "you." I'm not singling you out, bro! :) )
I agree with you on this. It does indeed serve the purpose of separating the wheat from the chaff... but I'm not sure I'm ready to go so far as to say it's serving a Divine purpose.

And no worries I know what you meant, Brozilla!
Sstavix wrote: That is true, but those cultural shifts aren't just about gay marriage. Look at Putin's recent crackdown on proselytizing in Russia, or many Islamic nations where preaching anything but Islam merits a death sentence.
Yep, definitely more relevant examples. The Church faces opposition on all sides.
Sstavix wrote: All the more reason for the government to get out of the marriage business, in my opinion, but that's another topic for debate. :wink:
Hah you won't need to debate me, I agree on this one too. Unfortunately, since it IS in the marriage business, side effects are beginning to directly attack the Church, such as the policy they're trying to push up in your neck of the woods to try and inhibit what preachers can talk about at the pulpit. I'd say that's an example of harm, too.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
Incognitus
Noob
Noob
Posts: 23
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2014 6:46 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
Sstavix wrote:
Incognitus wrote: I believe women are not allowed to preach, but to be in subjection to their husband. (1 Corinthians 14:33-35, 1 Timothy 2:11, 1 Peter 3:1)
I can understand the approach of not allowing into priesthood or spiritual leadership roles - there are many churches (and faiths, even) that adhere to that. But if you're of the mentality of "be quiet, the menfolk are speaking," you'll find that approach won't score you many points here.

Little history lesson here - this site was founded by an awesome husband and wife team. And although he doesn't spend too much time in the forums (he's got a family to support and products to review, after all), she is extremely vocal and adept at maintaining this site, its Twitter and Facebook feeds, Steam curator account and Twitch stream. She's also the "public face" of the site, as it were, whenever interviews take place, or even the recent interfaith conference that Christ Centered Gamer recently attended. Christ Centered Gamer wouldn't be as awesome as it is today if not for her role in keeping it going. This is more than just a fan site to them - it's a calling, a ministry.

Great things can be accomplished when good, Godly women stand for what they believe in. Look at Ruth and Esther in the Old Testament. It's as relevant now as it was then.
I never said women can't do work to help their husband. It's the husband's job to honor his wife, maybe work, make a living to provide for his family, teach his wife and kids and discipline / chasten them if necessary. As the bride of Christ we (the church) should also honor our husband (Christ). I don't think that women should preach in the church though, but be in silence and subjection to their husband. They are a little lower than their husband because they are a "weaker vessel" (no offense ladies :) ). That's what the Bible says the head of man is Christ, and His head is the Father. The head of woman is man. Plain and simple.
1 Corinthians 11:3Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Ephesians 5:22-24Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
User avatar
Sstavix
CCGR addict
Posts: 2950
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 5:47 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: Eastern Washington. Not the crazy side.
Contact:
Incognitus wrote: I don't think that women should preach in the church though, but be in silence and subjection to their husband. They are a little lower than their husband because they are a "weaker vessel" (no offense ladies :) ). That's what the Bible says the head of man is Christ, and His head is the Father. The head of woman is man.
As you can probably predict, I'd have to respectfully disagree with this assessment. :lol: So by your standards, I'm probably not a "conservative Christian."

One last question on this topic, though - is your conclusion based solely on your readings and interpretation of the scriptures? Or have you prayed about this, and are reassured through the Holy Spirit that this is how things are supposed to be?
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests