Feminism

[aikido7]

More Shar'ia Law, conservative Christian style. This is exactly why religion is under attack today, from scientists, humanists, non-believers, former believers, atheists, agnostics, and those who claim to be "spiritual but not religious." According to the Christian polling company Barma, the fastest-growing demographic in the faith is "the Un-Churched."

Ancient dogma is no longer compelling nor persuasive to citizens in today's global culture. Islam and Christianity and their fundamentalism show they are in a defensive posture.

My solution is for the church to get back to Jesus. Instead of "right belief" it should be "right practice." And Islam, well, a recemt Pew Poll of Muslims world-wide found that over 90% of followers of Islam are discouraged and angry regarding the terrorism of the minority.

Christianity, in my opinion, is not about being able to give one's assent to a list of first-century beliefs. It is all about a relationship with Jesus as God.


T

 

[Rusha]

It's the will of God that women should be abused?

Do you vote, Nang?

It is my opinion women should never have been given the right to vote.

Chew on that bone, why don't you. :crackup:

Do you vote?

Only to offset feminist agendas and feminist candidates.

Why don't you refrain from voting if you don't believe women should have been given the right to vote?

Why not let your husband do the offsetting?

Two Christian votes better offset one devilish vote.

Voting against feminists has become a duty, that was imposed on me by feminists.

The little devils insisted voting "rights" upon women who did not approve or want to begin with.

I am only helping a new member out by making it obvious to her WHO she is dealing with here, and who the TOL feminists prove to be.

So far the most vocal is Rusha, who is an unbelieving anti-Christ.

I know the majority number of women you speak for, are devilish. :devil:

The feminists have no moral grounds for their agenda, and because they cannot excuse or explain their devilish ways, they instead will bash Christians who point out the wickedness of their beliefs.

Feminists are disagreeable, noisy, and hate the truths of their Maker.

It is not evil to use your own wicked means to oppose your wickedness.

Hate to tell you, but you cannot dismiss your enemies by insisting they have the right to vote, but should not vote against you.

:loser:

Ungodly feminism is a blight on TOL. :devil:

Christian counselors do not argue against the evil of domestic abuse . . this is just a feminist excuse that evidences distrust and hatred of men.

There are biblical solutions to abusive marriages, but rebelling against God's declared order (Genesis 3:16) solves nothing.

In fact, feminist rebellion has worsened the problems in the home and in marriages.

Show where I said they did ... or that's right, I didn't. I would expect ANY real Christian to agree that it is wrong. Or was it just predestined to happen.

Stick to things you know about, Nang ... that way you will have plenty of free time.

Man is commanded to be the rule over the wife. Adam was created as head of the woman.

This is not a bad thing, nor a punishment, but the good Law and Order of God reiterated for the protection and well-being of the woman.

The punishing curse imposed by God for their original sin, is death.

Both Adam and Eve received a death sentence for rebelling against God, but God gave them guidelines how to live their earthly lives, under this curse, in order to reproduce and eventually produce the promised Seed (Messiah).

The husband ruling over the wife is divine providence, not something to resist or reject.

How did Christ submit to you?

Jesus Christ submitted Himself to the Father, and served him in perfect obedience, even unto death.

He came in the flesh to right the wrongs of men and the devil, but He did not submit in service to us, except in love as Mediator and High Priestto sacrificially and substitutionally work propitiation before the Father for the remission of the sins of those the Father gave Him to redeem.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is God-centered, not man-centered.

Triune God does all things for His good pleasure and glory, alone.

Soli deo Gloria!

I wonder how many Lesbians are TOL members.

And if any, how many advocate feminism, and how many would openly admit Lesbianism is the basis for their feminist views.

My question only has to do with how openly and volitionally feminists post their secular, societal, political, and ungodly views on this (supposedly) theological website, but if any are also sexually deviant, why that is not openly declared also.

If they are not ashamed of rebelling against God's order for women on all the above levels, why there would be any hesitation on their part to also disclose their secret sexual deviations?

Not arguing with you, dear friend, but just wondering why it is fine to openly discuss all aspects of feminism except the sexual aspect that feeds much of it.

But why do they hesitate?

If they are so sure of their beliefs, to oppose the teaching of God regarding their created role, there has to be some kind of shame still existent within feminists to talk about all things but their sexuality.

I believe it is deep-seated conscience that keeps them quiet, for they know in their hearts of hearts, that their deviant sexuality is an actual mark that gives away their motives for rebelling against God's natural order.

Romans 1:28-32

It is less than honest to discuss feminism without discussing the deviant sexuality that is the core problem.

Since the moral basis of feminism is Lesbianism deviancy, then feminists should be open about admitting so. Even if one who defends feminism is not sexually deviant, they should be honest enough to discuss that Lesbianism is feminism's root cause.

Of course you wouldn't . . . openly.



Anything goes, right?




This is the Lesbian straw man argument, repeated ad nauseum . . . they claim to be feminists because of masculine abuse . . . but in reality they just want to practice their deviant sexual behavior without society's disapproval.





Yes. This is their mantra. Of course, constitutional rights never mention sexual deviants. Only the Holy Scriptures deals with such, and quite plainly.

Feminists have replaced the word of God with the word of government, that until recently has stayed away from weighing in on such matters.





Yes, a very sad but true commentary about TOL.

Sinful deviants supposed need to be protected from the faithful sons of God?

Bah . . .

You don't know what you are talking about . . .

Are you a Lesbian, Anna?

Do you condone Lesbianism, Anna?

My posts are only meant to bring this thread to its honest level. No one can discuss feminism without discussing the sexual deviancy that lies at its root.

Illogical.

Just because I believe feminism is wicked, means I must be silent and voice no opinions?



Bah

So there would be no Internet nor TOL if it weren't for the feminist Suffrage movement?

That is humorous . . . :chuckle:

Of course I am against women being abused and do not think it has to be tolerated, but I am also against divorce, so before offering counsel and resolution in any such situation involving either, one must become aware of all history and details of the problems.

There is biblical hope, relief, and even resolution possible for persons in abusive relationships, if they find a scriptural Christian Pastor, Elder, or counselor who is properly equipped to counsel and who will faithfully go the the Word of God to provide answers for the spouse(s) in need.

Nang

This is the first time you have stated it's wrong ... why is that?

What do I believe that would make anyone think I condoned it?

Plus, the more I say, the more you find to harass me about.

The voting laws were just fine as they were written, for a Representative Republic to function effectively.

I also believe the vote should have remained in the purview of (male) land-owners.

Well, Nang ... your input on the thread has been insightful. Insightfully bitter ... arrogant ... ignorant ... and trollish.

Add another smiley.

 

[Skybringr]

I really think you have taken it a step further because although I have tried to take you with a grain of salt, as it were....you really do come across as hateful towards women.

You keep mentioning the court and laws of the land. It sounds like you might have lost access to your kids or know someone close to you who did. It seems to have deepened your bitterness. I am only speculating and have no idea what happened, but whatever it was...not all women are the same, so you should not write them all off.

I ~keep mentioning~ what goes virtually without mention- issues which are putting society on a crutch.
I find it more then dubious.

They are not isolated incidents, it happens everywhere all the time and until one takes care of that, close the book on feminism altogether. It's as simple as that.

 

[Rusha]

I really think you have taken it a step further because although I have tried to take you with a grain of salt, as it were....you really do come across as hateful towards women.

You keep mentioning the court and laws of the land. It sounds like you might have lost access to your kids or know someone close to you who did. It seems to have deepened your bitterness. I am only speculating and have no idea what happened, but whatever it was...not all women are the same, so you should not write them all off.

Nailed it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Arthur, my understanding of a misogynist, is a person who hates or doesn't trust women. Is that the definition that you are working with too? I ask this because I do not believe a patriarchal society (albeit one run in a godly fashion) is a bad thing. I do not see it as a society that hates or distrusts women. Ideally, it is one where the women are allowed all their freedoms but also the idea of some protection and provision. I guess that sounds archaic when I type it and see how that would grate on some people...but it is the Biblical model, which I embrace.

Well, I would add seeing women as inferior more to the forefront but what you describe certainly falls under the misogyny umbrella also. The trouble with any sort of patriarchal society is that it already denies women equal standing where it comes to rights in terms of career etc, so as much as I can see where you're coming from I just couldn't support it because apart from anything else, there's no way certain men wouldn't abuse it and hence why women fought against the oppression they were under to start with...

One's concept of oppression can vary too, depending on circumstances and worldview. I do not think it is oppressive to say that a married woman with children, should be at home raising them rather than putting them in a daycare. Some women would find that very oppressive.

Well, it's subjective. I think some parents - both men and women - aren't fit to raise up children and I don't think it's a great idea to leave kids in a regular daycare centre if it could be avoided, but then women need to have a right where they can make the choice IMO, and also men. Some men can't hack the thought of it being the woman going to work and the bloke looking after the children so it's not exactly black or white...

Equal rights under the law....I believe we have that. I do not see how one sex is favoured over the other at least in Canada and USA law.

I guess I am just trying to understand the vantage point that others are coming from.

Well, equal rights are there now, but it took an uprising in order for them to be established.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Why male landowners?

How does only male landowners voting lead to an effectively functioning Republic?


Do you think women voting is a rebellion against the will and word of God? Do women voting usurp the authority of husbands and men?

Or does it depend on how a woman votes?

I guess nang never read what the proverbs ideal woman is - she was purchasing land, and was a business merchant as well.

See the entire list (not just the parts some men like and some (females? (i really think thats nangs husband posting which is why her? posts are inconsistant) )


Proverbs 31:10-31King James Version (KJV)

10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.

19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.

23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.

26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.

27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.

28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her.

29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all.

30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised.

31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

Looks like shes the breadwinner too. Weird huh.

 

[Arthur Brain]

They don't want equal rights, they want equal results. They just dress it up as equal rights, like how Eve dressed up the forbidden fruit.

Uh huh, because Adam wasn't blameless at all in that scenario right? And since when did you become the voice of what women want in general?

 

[The 5 solas]

I ~keep mentioning~ what goes virtually without mention- issues which are putting society on a crutch.
I find it more then dubious.

They are not isolated incidents, it happens everywhere all the time and until one takes care of that, close the book on feminism altogether. It's as simple as that.

I am not a feminist, I would loathe the label to be placed on me...the evidence is the posts I have made.

**goes and makes a sammich**

:nori:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I ~keep mentioning~ what goes virtually without mention- issues which are putting society on a crutch.
I find it more then dubious.

They are not isolated incidents, it happens everywhere all the time and until one takes care of that, close the book on feminism altogether. It's as simple as that.

So...what would you do if given the power? Deprive women of the vote? Disallow them equal rights and the chance to have a career outside of the home? Just what?

 

[Skybringr]

Looks like shes the breadwinner too. Weird huh.

Lollerskates!

You have so obviously never heard of allegory. If you're under the impression that women in those times were bread winners, then I would implore you to simply drop the Bible and let a ~man~ expound it for you, just as Paul told you to do :up:

 

[Angel4Truth]

They don't want equal rights, they want equal results. They just dress it up as equal rights, like how Eve dressed up the forbidden fruit.

yes, like resurrected, you believe that eve tricked Adam into eating it and he didn't know what it was... pathetic to change the word of God like that.

Still blaming God and "the woman" just like adam did, instead of confessing your own sin and being accountable for your own actions and decisions.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Lollerskates!

You have so obviously never heard of allegory. If you're under the impression that women in those times were bread winners, then I would implore you to simply drop the Bible and let a ~man~ expound it for you, just as Paul told you to do :up:

Of course, the bible is lying in the parts you dont like - even though it says she worked, merchanted and weighed the worth of and bought land, while her husband "sitteth" in the gates.

Its better to make the word of God a lie, than concede to the possibility that a virtuous woman before God can make business decisions and owns land. (even though the bible says she does)

 

[Skybringr]

So...what would you do if given the power? Deprive women of the vote? Disallow them equal rights and the chance to have a career outside of the home? Just what?

Was there ever a time in history where not allowing a woman to vote somehow deprived an election of the best candidate?

And
Was there ever a time in history where women were largely homeless over men?

I don't have any quarrel with women working or voting, but you base it on sheer equality and nothing more- no practical reason, just a vain liberation.

Why don't you think about this: It was one way for all of mankind's history, and now it's a all of a sudden a different way.
What good has it done mankind as opposed to the wrongs that have occurred?

Think about it good and hard. Not all good is tapped from liberal ideas.

 

[The 5 solas]

Well, I would add seeing women as inferior more to the forefront but what you describe certainly falls under the misogyny umbrella also. The trouble with any sort of patriarchal society is that it already denies women equal standing where it comes to rights in terms of career etc, so as much as I can see where you're coming from I just couldn't support it because apart from anything else, there's no way certain men wouldn't abuse it and hence why women fought against the oppression they were under to start with...

Yes, I can see that it would be abused...as it has in the past. I guess that is why I said *ideally*. On a smaller level, I know of many Christian homes which function like this that are strong marriages with very happy husbands and wives. It takes good godly men and women to pull it off though, that is for sure. The women can be in a vulnerable place if the men are not as they should be.

I am also thinking more of marriages than society too..I need to widen my scope in the discussion. Women should not be denied education or careers. Situations vary....again, single women need to support themselves and sometimes wives need to help with the financial load.

Well, equal rights are there now, but it took an uprising in order for them to be established.

Yes, it did. I think that pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction now though. Men are dazed and confused nowadays, women have *freedom* that I think has led them to bondage because of the pressure and I think we as a society are suffering because of this new extreme.

Thank you so much for the response, Arthur!

 

[Arthur Brain]

Was there ever a time in history where not allowing a woman to vote somehow deprived an election of the best candidate?

Quite possibly...

And
Was there ever a time in history where women were largely homeless over men?

What's your point? Was there a time in history where women without any voice could get justice for being raped?

I don't have any quarrel with women working or voting, but you base it on sheer equality and nothing more- no practical reason, just a vain liberation.

Equality is the standard, that's it. Men and women are due equal rights. People of different 'race' are due the same if that makes it any easier for you to digest, not that we've always had that in society by a long shot...

Why don't you think about this: It was one way for all of mankind's history, and now it's a all of a sudden a different way.
What good has it done mankind as opposed to the wrongs that have occurred?

What good? Hmm, let's think...women having an equal say and a voice whereby they can speak out against injustice, both their own and others including men. If you want to point towards history then it's replete with abuse towards men, women and children, the likes of which simply aren't tolerated in any 'civilized' society. Hence why we don't tolerate segregation, abuse behind 'closed doors' and child labour, at least in the West. You can't blame women for being the cause of injustices in a court of law, certainly not in general.

Think about it good and hard. Not all good is tapped from liberal ideas.

You want to start thinking about this topic full stop. It's not a "liberal idea" to support women having the same rights as men.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yes, I can see that it would be abused...as it has in the past. I guess that is why I said *ideally*. On a smaller level, I know of many Christian homes which function like this that are strong marriages with very happy husbands and wives. It takes good godly men and women to pull it off though, that is for sure. The women can be in a vulnerable place if the men are not as they should be.

Well, if it works for those couples where it's mutual then I certainly won't criticize, but as a society - it just couldn't...

I am also thinking more of marriages than society too..I need to widen my scope in the discussion. Women should not be denied education or careers. Situations vary....again, single women need to support themselves and sometimes wives need to help with the financial load.

They shouldn't be denied such avenues so I agree. Sometimes both parents have to work also, so it's not black and white.

Yes, it did. I think that pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction now though. Men are dazed and confused nowadays, women have *freedom* that I think has led them to bondage because of the pressure and I think we as a society are suffering because of this new extreme.

Well, with any sort of ideal you're likely to have a backlash and that came in the form of militant feminism - something which does women and the notion of feminism itself no favours at all, as with any branch of fanatical extremism. It's still a minority however and not representative of those who hold to equality. Pretty much all extremism is a minor if vocal voice....

Thank you so much for the response, Arthur!

No problem at all. :e4e:

 

[Skybringr]

What's your point? Was there a time in history where women without any voice could get justice for being raped?

As with everything else, there needs to be proof and not just the word of the woman. You want to talk about rights- women do not have the right to prosecute someone based on accusation.

You see, women can lie. I don't know what they teach over in the feminist camp, but I hear about rape and molestation well too often to simply conclude all of them are telling the truth.

Without medical testing, there was rarely an occurrence where one could rightfully prosecute a rapist.

But never mind any of that, it's far more convenient to just say women were sex slaves and nothing more.

Equality is the standard, that's it. Men and women are due equal rights. People of different 'race' are due the same if that makes it any easier for you to digest, not that we've always had that in society by a long shot...

Racial phylogeny has no bearing on the roles of mankind. Gender, however, very much does.
Men and women are not the same and the very idea needs to go back to whatever hole it crawled out of.

In fact, let me expound a bit more on that last bit. Do you even know that the going notion for most females is that we are exactly the same and just in different bodies? That is to say, not simply being human, but that besides the hormonal attraction, there is literally nothing different..

I've heard it come right out the mouths of feminist college students. That's what is being taught and perpetuated, and it's stupid.

Hmm, let's think...women having an equal say and a voice whereby they can speak out against injustice, both their own and others including men.

Are you serious?
Notice that I have spoken on injustices. What has become of my words?
That's right, nothing. Those like yourself are apparently incapable of seeing any other issues, feminism has you and many others hypnotized.

If you want to point towards history then it's replete with abuse towards men, women and children, the likes of which simply aren't tolerated in any 'civilized' society. Hence why we don't tolerate segregation, abuse behind 'closed doors' and child labour, at least in the West. You can't blame women for being the cause of injustices in a court of law, certainly not in general.

I don't like segregation either. But they should do it in prisons :up:

And
Yes I certainly can blame women for the injustices in court. Their inability to take accountability and being taught by the generation before them to be outrageously selfish is in part why it happens; the second part the feminist blindfold put over men.

The whole thing is a complete disgrace and who is taking accountability for it? That's right- nobody.
And nobody will until one takes that blindfold off.

 

[Arthur Brain]

As with everything else, there needs to be proof and not just the word of the woman. You want to talk about rights- women do not have the right to prosecute someone based on accusation.

You see, women can lie. I don't know what they teach over in the feminist camp, but I hear about rape and molestation well too often to simply conclude all of them are telling the truth.

Without medical testing, there was rarely an occurrence where one could rightfully prosecute a rapist.

But never mind any of that, it's far more convenient to just say women were sex slaves and nothing more.

Of course there'd need to be more than just the say so of the woman. The thing is, even just voicing it would get a woman nowhere where they had no voice whether they could back up their accusations or not. Okay, scientific procedures and testing are far more advanced now but to deny that rape and abuse were apparent when women had no recourse but to endure it is absurd...

FYI, I happen to believe that anyone crying rape and found to be lying should receive a tough sentence as it not only does a disservice to the actual victims of such but it can also be devastating to the falsely accused. Is that a liberal idea?

Racial phylogeny has no bearing on the roles of mankind. Gender, however, very much does.
Men and women are not the same and the very idea needs to go back to whatever hole it crawled out of.

Supporting equal rights under law is not the same as espousing that both sexes are the same. That certainly isn't what I'm saying...

In fact, let me expound a bit more on that last bit. Do you even know that the going notion for most females is that we are exactly the same and just in different bodies? That is to say, not simply being human, but that besides the hormonal attraction, there is literally nothing different..

I've heard it come right out the mouths of feminist college students. That's what is being taught and perpetuated, and it's stupid.

Where are you getting this notion that 'most females' believe what you're suggesting? What I will say is that there's plenty of characteristics that both sexes share as oppose to the 'macho' idea of a man and the 'feminine' as woman as if they're polar opposite cliches.

Are you serious?
Notice that I have spoken on injustices. What has become of my words?
That's right, nothing. Those like yourself are apparently incapable of seeing any other issues, feminism has you and many others hypnotized.

Yes, and pointing out that women having the vote and a voice is not the cause of injustice in court still stands. If you're so blinded as to not remain objective on the issue then I doubt anything I would say would help. For what it's worth I'm opposed to any sort of injustice be it to any person although it's inevitably going to happen. I'm simply not so biased as to level the blame in an unfair manner.

I don't like segregation either. But they should do it in prisons :up:

Well, for that then yes, for obvious reasons...

And
Yes I certainly can blame women for the injustices in court. Their inability to take accountability and being taught by the generation before them to be outrageously selfish is in part why it happens; the second part the feminist blindfold put over men.

The whole thing is a complete disgrace and who is taking accountability for it? That's right- nobody.
And nobody will until one takes that blindfold off.

Well, that's just you spouting off on an ignorant generalizing rant. Plenty of men have been culpable of the same so I can't help but feel that this drive to criticize women in positions of power is generated by a personal beef. If you were unfairly treated then I'm sorry, but as an argument it simply doesn't hold water.

 

[meshak]

According to Jabin, a woman should stay in an abusive marriage rather than divorcing, and he reduces abuse to "a few bruises." Mere collateral damage, in other words.

I don't agree with divorce because it is not permitted in the Bible but we should separate from abusive spouse, especially if the kids are involved. Jesus would not condone staying in abusive relationship.

 

[Skybringr]

yes, like resurrected, you believe that eve tricked Adam into eating it and he didn't know what it was... pathetic to change the word of God like that.

Still blaming God and "the woman" just like adam did, instead of confessing your own sin and being accountable for your own actions and decisions.

Why do you think God willed a patriarch in the first place?

And
Are you even aware that God made mankind a patriarch? Seriously, regale me with how you say God isn't a misogynist and yet I am.

And again
The story of Adam and Eve is not arbitrary. It would have been a whole lot easier to just say Adam and Eve were deceived by the serpent and that be it, but there is a blatant and specific telling of Eve and the serpent.

I personally believe it is inevitable that it was sex related, and Eve began to adulterate society with promiscuity and vain affairs. Much like today, you see.
Suppose you can't be a literalist and see that, though.