I want to be a scientist, but I don’t know if the Bible says anything against women being scientists. It has said stuff like women should "be quiet" and "submit" (e.g. 1 Timothy 2:11). I know that there are many interpretations of that. I want to know if a woman can, in good conscience, pursue a career in science.

Unity Church often refers to the Holy Spirit in feminine terms, a view that contrasts with traditional Christian doctrine. This raises the question of whether their belief is tied to certain biblical wordings. In Genesis 2:18 (ESV), Eve is introduced with: > “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.’” In the Gospel of John, the Holy Spirit is called a helper multiple times. For example, John 14:16 (ESV) says: > “And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever.” Other similar references include John 14:26, 15:26, and 16:7, all using the Greek term paraklētos (translated as Helper, Comforter, or Advocate). Is Unity Church’s feminine understanding of the Holy Spirit based on this shared role/title of “helper” between Eve and the Spirit? Or is their interpretation shaped more by metaphysical symbolism or other theological influences?

According to Catholic theologians, did God create create female animals from their male counterparts, as he created Eve from the rib of Adam (Gn. 2:22 )? Or did He create the first male/female pair of each animal species* simultaneously? *"according to their kinds" (Gn. 1:21-25 )

Throughout the Bible, angels typically appear as men or a masculine form. They're often described as warriors, engaging in battle. (Source ) However, in modern, generally Western (or at least American) culture, angels are thought of as feminine figures, often portrayed by women (or Victoria Secret models). (Source ) **When (about) did this change occur?** --- I realize this may not be a very well-developed question (please, feel free to modify/enhance it), but I think I'm on to something here - even if it is merely a curiosity. I get the feeling that one of the reasons for angels being thought as feminine has something to do with the New Age movement and their concept (and often worship of) Guardian Angels, but it's just a gut feeling or sorts.

The Bible does not strike me as welcoming to transgenderism: > The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God. -- Deuteronomy 22:5 And it is not hard to find knowledgeable Christian leaders (of various denominations) denouncing transgenderism via a web search. Incompatibility between transgenderism and Christianity seems like the norm. AthanasiusOfAlex , 2015, writes "transgenderism is deeply problematic" explaining that: - God created man and women (Genesis 1:27 ), and that - "[a person's] body is just as much a part of his being as his soul". However, Wikipedia explains that (liberal) Protestantism accepts transgender people: > Within mainline, or more specifically liberal, Protestantism, several denominations or regional bodies within denominations have grown increasingly accepting and supportive of transgender members and rights. This leads me to my question: **Question**: How does liberal Protestantism reconcile supporting transgenderism with what the Bible teaches? I'm not well-informed about Christian denominations, so I don't know precisely which Protestant subset has a "transgenderism is okay" stance. I'm interested in how they come to the conclusion that "transgenderism is okay" while others do not.

I’ve been doing some dedicated reading into what I’ll call the “neo-patriarchy movement” as a lot of this literature has been gaining traction in my congregation. One of the consistent ideas in this camp that I find questionable is that the husband has an exclusive and uni-lateral role in discipling his wife: > The Bible also teaches that a wife should be a disciple of her husband…a husband should be instructing and teaching his wife. She should not make this duty superfluous by going elsewhere for the instruction. > > “Reforming Marriage” Doug Wilson > Though both men and women are to seek wisdom, women are instructed to seek it from men; from their husbands. > > “It’s Good to be a Man” Michael Foster The passages used to support the concept in both cases are 1.) 1 Cor. 14:35 which instructs wives to ask their husbands at home if they have questions in the assembly, 2.) Eph. 5:26 which discusses a husband washing his wife with the word. My thoughts both for and against this view: 1) There are multiple interpretations of the Corinthians passage, which can’t be debated here. However I hold to the “judging prophecies” view. In that case this is just saying in this context it would subvert male authority for women to speak out in judging prophecies.. The purpose of them asking their husbands isn’t to give a universal rule of exclusive husband discipleship, but to maintain order in the worship service. 2) Eph. 5:26: It might be a hot take, but I think it fits better with the flow of this passage if you take this section as referring to what Christ does, not what the husband does. In any case, if you do take this as a command to husbands, its still seems a stretch that this is creating a general rule of exclusive, uni-lateral husbandly discipleship. At most this could be taken as giving the husband the responsibility of caring for his wife's general spiritual welfare. 3) We know that “there is one mediator between God and men” 1 Tim 2:5, that all Christians can approach the throne of God “with confidence” (Heb. 4:16), and that through Jesus we now “have access to the father” (Eph. 2:18). So it seems odd that a woman getting married would result in her access to Christ being reduced. It also seems unbiblical that her husband would act as a sort of mediator to this degree. 4) Multiple examples of women learning directly from Jesus or other men: Jesus with Mary and Martha, the woman at the well, Paul teaching Lydia and the other women in Acts, the women following around Jesus and his ministry in Luke. 5) Even Calvin doesn’t see this passage as an exclusive, uni-lateral discipleship role. “When he says husbands, he does not prohibit them from consulting the prophets themselves, if necessary. For all husbands are not competent to give an answer in such a case; but, as he is reasoning here as to external polity…it is the part of the prudent reader to consider, that the things which he here treats are intermediate and indifferent, in which there is nothing unlawful, but what is at variance with propriety and edification.” 6) This concept does account for a the wife being a helper to her husband. How can she help him, if all the wisdom she receives, he already has since he gave it her? 7) On the other hand, in Genesis, God does give the command to Adam directly and not to Eve as well. (Although Eve wasn’t around to hear it at the time). 8) In my earlier examples of Jesus directly teaching women, none of them were married. The only exception is Joanna the wife of Chuza. But in her case she is not explicitly taught by Jesus (although it’s hard to believe she would not have heard his teaching while traveling with him). 9) If you hold to a different interpretation of 1 Cor. 14 or Eph. 5:26, then there may be a stronger case to take v. 35 as building a general rule of exclusive male discipleship. *I know this can be a hot topic, so thoughtful comments dealing with the biblical text and/or Christian teaching only. Please no patriarchy bashing.

Are there any Christian denominations that teach a complementarian view of opposite-sex marriages (the husband should lead and the wife should submit), while also recognizing same-sex marriages? If so, do they teach that one spouse in a same-sex marriage should submit to the other, or that both have equal roles?

Gender is a hot topic as of late, with a seemingly small but very vocal minority preaching that gender is fluid, non-binary, and that people may choose to identify with whatever gender they wish. What is the official stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the matter?

Did the Early Church acknowledge the Holy Spirit as Feminine? An article recently titled “ The Holy Spirit as feminine: Early Christian testimonies and their interpretation” note that the early Church referred to the Holy Spirit as Feminine. They cite such examples from resources such as Origen’s commentary on John. He writes >> If anyone should lend credence to the Gospel according to the Hebrews, where the Saviour Himself says, 'My Mother (mētēr), the Holy Spirit, took me just now by one of my hairs and carried me off to the great Mount Tabor', he will have to face the difficulty of explaining how the Holy Spirit can be the Mother (mētēr) of Christ when She was herself brought into existence through the Word. But neither the passage nor this difficulty is hard to explain. For if he who does the will of the Father in heaven [Mt. 12:50] is Christ's brother and sister and mother (mētēr), and if the name of brother of Christ may be applied, not only to the race of men, but to beings of diviner rank than they, then there is nothing absurd in the Holy Spirit's being His Mother (mētēr); everyone being His mother who does the will of the Father in heaven. (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John 2, 12 - Preuschen 1903:67) Or Jerome which notes >> … and he should believe in the Gospel, which has been edited according to the Hebrews, which we have translated recently, in which it is said of the person of the Saviour: 'My Mother (mater), the Holy Spirit, took me just now by one of my hairs ….' (Jerome, Commentary on Micah 2, 7, 6 - Adriaen 1969:513) >>And also this: (in the text) 'like the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress' [Ps. 123:2], the maid is the soul and the mistress (dominam) is the Holy Spirit. For also in that Gospel written according to the Hebrews, which the Nazaraeans read, the Lord says: 'Just now, my Mother (mater), the Holy Spirit, took me.' Nobody should be offended by this, for among the Hebrews the Spirit is said to be of the feminine gender (genere feminino), although in our language it is called to be of masculine gender and in the Greek language neuter. (Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah 11, 40, 9 - Adriaen 1963:459) So is this true? Are these genuine citations from the Church Fathers? Or is this quote mining to propel a more feminine deity?

> Women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to > speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. Many churches these days feature female pastors, preachers and teachers. This includes [theologically conservative churches](https://www.christianpost.com/news/five-theologically-conservative-denominations-with-female-pastors.html) . Presuming that they believe the Bible is inerrant, how do church officials and scholars justify this? Is it based on other scriptures, textual criticism or what? (Not seeking opinions on church policy here, but I am interested in how biblical inerrantists who support women preaching in church deal with this issue hermeneutically.)

Because the Bible teaches that God made men directly in His image but women indirectly (1 Timothy 2:13) and that God transcends all moral judgment (Romans 9:20), what does this imply about the ability of men to receive forgiveness, as compared to women? I weigh answers from the Church Fathers the highest, preferably Latin and Greek fathers during the first millennia.

The Scripture mentions homosexual practises a lot but Scripture seems silent about transsexualism. This question is asking answers from a Protestant perspective preferably those who uphold the doctrine of Sola Scriptura of the Reformation. How do Protestant Christians explain gender dysphoria/transgenderism?

There has been a tradition among Catholic nuns to adopt a new name on the day of their Religious Profession, as a token of their having adopted a new method of living. A few Orders of religious Priests and Brothers have also been following the practice. Now, there have been discussions on C.SE on the gender that souls would assume in Heaven. But we have always been calling the Saints (e.g. Joseph, Mary, Thomas, etc) by the name they had been given while living on the earth. In most cases, the name itself is indicative of the gender the person belongs to. And each person's name is dear to the Heavenly Father (Isa 49:16). But just in case there is no gender distinction in Heaven, a dweller's name also has to be changed accordingly so that it does not give away the gender which the soul once belonged to. My question therefore is: According to Catholic scholars, will each of us have a new name in Heaven ?

I will apologize at the outset as this question stems more from anecdote than from research. Anecdote 1 - Some years ago, while at the local dump, I was approached by a woman for help unloading the trunk of her car. By way of thanks (after a brief conversation) she offered me some Jehovah's Witness material, notably a booklet called "What Does The Bible Really Teach?". I gladly accepted and offered to read the book and then reunite with her to discuss the contents. She declined and instead offered to have one of the deacons (male) from the local Kingdom Hall contact me if I was interested in studying the booklet together. The reason she gave for declining my offer was that JW women were not allowed to instruct men. Anecdote 2 - Much to my wife's chagrin I have always invited JW into my home to discuss the scriptures when they come knocking at the door. My wife was homeschooling our children at the time and would send JW visitors away if I was off at work. As these visits were concurrent with a year long bible study via telephone (the result of anecdote 1) I requested of the JW deacon with whom I was speaking that visits during my away hours cease. What occurred is that male visits during my away hours ceased but small groups of females periodically stopped by (more spousal chagrin). As my work schedule became apparent so did this pattern: When I was known to be home it was men who came and never women. I found some relevant information in Watchtower online which seems to indicate that women may witness to and teach men in an evangelistic setting but may not teach doctrine or preside over a congregation wherein there are baptized male believers. My question is: Was the woman from anecdote 1 just being extra cautious in declining to undertake bible study with me or was it my baptism in a Protestant denomination that was enough to disqualify her as my teacher? A corollary question is: How does this affect a JW woman's ability to answer questions on a site such as this Christianity Stack where an OP's gender is often unknown and an OP's baptism into Christianity is often unknown but is likely to have occurred?

Islamic scholars claim it is against Islamic rules to attend events where there is free mixing of men and women (such as concerts, proms and parties): > There follows a list of haraam things which both men and women should > avoid in the wedding party: > > **1- Mixing of men with women, and things that are involved in that, such as greeting and shaking hands with one another, and men and women > dancing together, because all of that is haraam and is a very serious > matter.** > > 2- Taking pictures, whether men do that amongst themselves or women do that amongst themselves. > > 3- Drinking alcohol or eating pork. > > **4- Letting the husband come in to where the women are in order to take his wife.** Does the Bible preach similarly strict rules regarding the interaction of genders? Did early Christians also maintain strict division between men and women in public places to combat temptation and immorality?

The Bible tells us repeatedly that our earthly actions will impact our ability to enter the gates of Heaven. Some Biblical passages say that our earthly actions can improve or lessen our experience of Heaven if we are in fact lucky enough to reach it. With that being said, I conclude that we must retain our earthly identities and our earthly experiences. But if that's the case, then I must ask: - **According to Catholic doctrine, do we retain our gender in Heaven?** Reason for my question: A person's gender *shapes* their experience on planet Earth. Gender is a quality that you simply cannot shake. It opens some doors and closes others (and I'm not talking about the rest rooms :/) On the other hand, the Bible describes Heaven as a state of perfection and a place without bounds. As I see it, gender creates bounds, or at least a lane within which to operate. Such a lane would seem to run contrary to the nature of Heaven.

While reading J. V. Fesko's *The Theology of the Westminster Standards*, I found an interesting tidbit in the context of his discussion of justification in Reformed theology: > Medieval theologians such as [Lombard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lombard) argued that Old Testament men were justified through circumcision and women were justified by their faith and good works. Reformed theology, of course, rejects this idea, holding that justification is by faith alone (not circumcision nor good works). But the idea that men were justified on a different basis than women is still intriguing, so I'd like to better understand the view. **What is the basis for arguing that men and women in the OT were justified through different means?** More specifically, here are a few aspects of the question: - What is the biblical and logical basis for such a view? - Why would there be two means of justification, one for men and one for women? - Why would men not also be justified on the basis of "faith and good works"? - Would faith thus not be required for men to be justified? I'd like to restrict the question to the views of Lombard and other scholastics – here I'm not looking for post-Reformation versions of this view.

Hildebrand, *Man, Woman, and the Meaning of Love* , § "Friendship Between Man & Woman", §§ "There are many spiritual differences between the sexes" claims: >In the Middle Ages the depth of this difference [between men and women] was totally understood, as evidenced by the interest in the question of whether the angels were also masculine and feminine. What medieval theologians discussed this question? St. Thomas's , John of St. Thomas's , and Súarez's treatises on angels don't appear to discuss it. I've [heard it claimed](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gO0O7w5VBs) that our souls are male or female, yet St. Thomas denies this ([_Super Sent._, lib. 4 d. 25 q. 2 a. 1 qc. 1 arg. 3](http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/snp4024.html#19092) : "*Sed sexus non est in anima.* [But sex is not in the soul.]") and so does St. Ambrose ([_De Virginitate_ cap. 15](https://archive.org/stream/patrologiaecur16mign#page/152/mode/2up) : "*anima enim sexum non habet* [for the soul does not have a sex].").

From a few feminist-like individuals I have heard the argument that God is actually genderless, and despite God being called Father in the scriptures they refute these claims. As a reformed protestant I do not share this opinion but am interested in understanding its origins. What evidence do people use to prove that God is genderless?

TL;DR >What Biblical justification is there for gender segregation in prayer/small groups? and has there been any study on the affect which this segregation has on the people involved? --- In various churches, I often come across gender segregation in one form or another. This is even in _fairly_ progressive churches, eg ones in university areas with large student populations. (I'm talking about the UK here. I know that _progressive_ needs to be taken differently depending on the location. In particular, there is a significant difference between UK and US approaches to church-life.) Perhaps the most common one of these, and the one I would like to address in this question, is to do with small groups and prayer. At one local church (the largest in the town, which is really a "university-town"), all the student small groups are completely gender segregated. In another, the small groups are mixed gender, but at the end they separate off, male and female praying separately. I have heard the argument that "sometimes women want to speak about certain things only with another woman". I am not a woman (in any sense), so I cannot speak personally about this. However, it seems unreasonable to make that argument regarding praying in a group of up to 10 people, many of whom you may not know well. Asking to pray individually with a (fellow) woman is a _completely_ different matter. So my question boils down to the following. >What Biblical justification is there for such gender segregation? Gender segregation gets a bad rap outside of churches for well-documented reasons. Further, there has been significant studies on the effects that it has on people. Searching, I was unable to find material specific to the situation I describe -- understandably; it's fairly niche.