Agreed! I am dismayed that Nang would stoop so low.
Feminism
- Thread starter The 5 solas
- Start date
- Status
Agreed! I am dismayed that Nang would stoop so low.
You are such an unmitigated dweeb! You don't even know how to get mad!
My husband never lifted a rough hand to me nor I to him. The only time he raised his voice was to ask for help and I would have crawled over hot coals to help him.
Your obvious dislike of women leads me to the conclusion that you don't know how to please a woman nor do you feel that you should.
I briefly lost control when I went into hard labor during my first childbirth. I briefly lost control when my little 8 year old child was hit by a car. I briefly lost control when a 6.5 earthquake struck while vacationing in Acapulco with my family. I briefly lost control when my mother died.
Otherwise, I am always a match for your unctuous slithering's.
now why did I need to know all that?
you know as well as I that the democrats are in control because of the women vote
so
doesn't that mean women are in control?
Can't you figure that out for yourself?
Why do you always need a woman to provide you with answers to the bleeding obvious?
I stand corrected. Feminism is abuse of women. As is abortion.
Hi folks.
Wow, a lot of water under the bridge since I last logged in. Hence a multi-quote message. Please read all of it!
The idea of role differentiating can be just another way of making the woman do as she is told. Human nature is free. It cannot be put in a box. And whilst it is true that most top scientists, mathematicians, etc. are men, there have still been a significant number of women innovators, etc in history. The woman's make up renders her suitable for certain roles and unsuitable for others, just as is true for men also. But that does not mean that women and men must always fulfil those roles and no others. Each individual is free to be the person they want to be. That is the fundamental nature of humanity.
I think she is afraid (on women's behalf) of having someon'e hip on her shoulder. That's not control, it's violence. The Bible says that woman was made to be the help mate of the man, not the slave or servant.
I agree. And since our fundamental belief as Christians is that in Christ, the effects of the fall are negated, we ought to be the first and foremost people on earth to combat those effects with the power of the Spirit given to us. Remember: marriage was made for man, not man for marriage... And the fact that in life we are controlled by others, particularly in employment, isn't a justification for this happening in a marriage. As has been said by several here and I agree, men and women are interdependent. That is Paul's position and it is mine too.
So that's what this is all about!
That's just plain wrong, as any simple exegesis of the passage will show. The context of that verse (usually quoted on its own as if it were some isolated dictum of no specific import) is that Peter stopped eating with the gentile believers because he wanted to fess up with the circumcision party. Paul's conclusion is that in Christ there is no Jew or gentile and then he widens the scope to make a more general point, there is no slave nor free and there is no male or female. No, that is not a salvation issue at all. It is a very practical issue of how believers are to treat one another.
I don't entirely agree with you there. But I guess my disagreement is what you might call a technical one rather than a theological or ethical one. I simply think that homosexuality and lesbianism are abnormal behaviours. And so it is incumbent on wise people to treat such people with more caution. I think it is entirely justified to be concerned that the behaviour of such people could be unpredictable in stressful situations and I think it is entirely justifiable to disallow such persons from teaching with children or similar jobs or from adopting children.
In response to various comments about headship within marriage, I have 2 points to make:
1. When God made woman, he said 'it is not good for the man to be alone'.
If, as a result of wanting to shield the inadequacies of a man, or due to gross distortions of scripture, etc., the end result is that man is to carry the ultimate decision making responsibility in a marriage, then he is still alone. The woman has not ultimately been able to help him.
2. If by headship, Paul meant that the man dishes out the orders to the wife and the wife must obey, just as Christ is the head of the man, and this supposed equality of role differentiation is God's way of ordering the world, then how come Christ never tells the man what to do? This argument that the man is the head of the woman in practice is nothing more than a theological justification for the slavery of the woman in the marriage. If I am wrong, then I would invite any husband here to tell me when was the last time Christ intervened in his marriage and said do this or do that? When was the last time the man had to do what he was told? Even the most spiritual of you would not be able to point to more than a couple of occasions in an entire lifetime when Christ led the man to do some specific thing. That is not what headship means. Headship is explicitly defined in the New Testament as sacrificing yourself for the wife. There is no need to look elsewhere for an explanation.
Wow, a lot of water under the bridge since I last logged in. Hence a multi-quote message. Please read all of it!
The idea of role differentiating can be just another way of making the woman do as she is told. Human nature is free. It cannot be put in a box. And whilst it is true that most top scientists, mathematicians, etc. are men, there have still been a significant number of women innovators, etc in history. The woman's make up renders her suitable for certain roles and unsuitable for others, just as is true for men also. But that does not mean that women and men must always fulfil those roles and no others. Each individual is free to be the person they want to be. That is the fundamental nature of humanity.
I think she is afraid (on women's behalf) of having someon'e hip on her shoulder. That's not control, it's violence. The Bible says that woman was made to be the help mate of the man, not the slave or servant.
I agree. And since our fundamental belief as Christians is that in Christ, the effects of the fall are negated, we ought to be the first and foremost people on earth to combat those effects with the power of the Spirit given to us. Remember: marriage was made for man, not man for marriage... And the fact that in life we are controlled by others, particularly in employment, isn't a justification for this happening in a marriage. As has been said by several here and I agree, men and women are interdependent. That is Paul's position and it is mine too.
So that's what this is all about!
That's just plain wrong, as any simple exegesis of the passage will show. The context of that verse (usually quoted on its own as if it were some isolated dictum of no specific import) is that Peter stopped eating with the gentile believers because he wanted to fess up with the circumcision party. Paul's conclusion is that in Christ there is no Jew or gentile and then he widens the scope to make a more general point, there is no slave nor free and there is no male or female. No, that is not a salvation issue at all. It is a very practical issue of how believers are to treat one another.
I don't entirely agree with you there. But I guess my disagreement is what you might call a technical one rather than a theological or ethical one. I simply think that homosexuality and lesbianism are abnormal behaviours. And so it is incumbent on wise people to treat such people with more caution. I think it is entirely justified to be concerned that the behaviour of such people could be unpredictable in stressful situations and I think it is entirely justifiable to disallow such persons from teaching with children or similar jobs or from adopting children.
In response to various comments about headship within marriage, I have 2 points to make:
1. When God made woman, he said 'it is not good for the man to be alone'.
If, as a result of wanting to shield the inadequacies of a man, or due to gross distortions of scripture, etc., the end result is that man is to carry the ultimate decision making responsibility in a marriage, then he is still alone. The woman has not ultimately been able to help him.
2. If by headship, Paul meant that the man dishes out the orders to the wife and the wife must obey, just as Christ is the head of the man, and this supposed equality of role differentiation is God's way of ordering the world, then how come Christ never tells the man what to do? This argument that the man is the head of the woman in practice is nothing more than a theological justification for the slavery of the woman in the marriage. If I am wrong, then I would invite any husband here to tell me when was the last time Christ intervened in his marriage and said do this or do that? When was the last time the man had to do what he was told? Even the most spiritual of you would not be able to point to more than a couple of occasions in an entire lifetime when Christ led the man to do some specific thing. That is not what headship means. Headship is explicitly defined in the New Testament as sacrificing yourself for the wife. There is no need to look elsewhere for an explanation.
I gave nick a positive rep
Can a man's nature bear children and breast feed?
True. However, the woman can never be a father, and the man can never be the mother.
That is like saying eating a bullet is abnormal behavior.
Agreement from you is not a good thing.
No. Of course not. But those are negative assertions. Nothing stops a woman from being a rocket scientist or a man a child minder. And nothing says that a woman has to bear children.
If a person did it once, you'd think they were being stupid or maybe even creative or witty. If they did it regularly, you'd think they were abnormal. Same thing applies to sexual behaviour. People are defined by what they do. If a person wants to have sex with someone of the same sex but never does, that person is not a homosexual (or lesbian). If a person wants to commit sin all the time but never does or only occasionally, that person is not a sinner. Death came to all men not because all men were sinful but becaue all men sinned.
As I've already said, women and men are interdependent. That is Paul's argument in a couple of places such as 1 Cor 11. He says that in the Lord Christ is the head of the man and the man is the head of the woman but he also says that woman is from man (i.e. referring to Genesis) and man has his birth from woman. I don't advocate women's liberation. That is the same as saying that the woman must become independent from the man. But this still doesn't mean that the woman must be the servant or slave of the man in a marriage. That is not interdependence. The idea of role differentiation is (or can be) a cover for that.
Well said! It is according to God's plan that we need each other.
There is implied equality in that need.
Nimrod
Member
Keywords: Misogynistic and patriarch.
Aurthur Brain is a feminist.
What happened when we gave women the right to vote? Bigger Government, which means more tyranny. Why is that? Because there is more suffrage to deal with.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Always the woman's fault, hey Nimrod?
Could you let me into the secret of how you get to be so intelligent?
I'm jealous of your scriptural knowledge and your deep analytical abilities.
According to the responses, they do go hand in hand.
Nah, Arthur Brain is a great guy who doesn't allow his ego cloud the way he treats others. I can understand though how valuing women would rub a certain type of person the wrong way.
Correction ... you didn't *give it* ... we took it. We can do that you know. The permission of men is no longer necessary.
Levolor
New member
There are men who have breast fed. Google it and see.
Maybe someday you will do so too?
- Status