andyc
New member
Go back and read the post.
ECT MADist thought for the day
- Thread starter andyc
- Start date
- Status
Go back and read the post.
No, it isnt, God tells women to honor their husbands. Why do you think its a chore or bondage?
Levolor
New member
I can't agree with you. The man is unclean due to his inconsiderateness to the difficulty of that time of the month for most women.
What a joy it must have been for the women of the Old Testament to go off by themselves and chat and laugh... to relax and have others take up the slack for them.
Blessedness!
No, this is freedom. Perhaps bondage for men, but they do often need to be restrained*, which btw, is the reason for so many regulations being for what is required of the men.
*And in this aspect, perhaps also blood lust was restrained.
I'd say the reason for your fight is only because you are ignorant regarding this. Not a bad thing... ignorance can be cured, unlike idiocy and stupidity.
Remember: anything that makes God look anything less than loving in any scripture shows a misunderstanding of that particular verse, for God is love.
once again, nitpicking customs and traditions of the OLD WORLD, within the Bible. you refuse to get past minor details, irrelevant details. many have become stuck, bogged down, by a few words. what craziness is exactly right, but i wouldn't laugh that hard. what a fool you are to look at one scripture, about husbands and wives. that's all you got ? 1 Corinthians chapter 7 ? c'mon, you can do better than that
i can. God's Will. The saving of mankind. no case "building" necessary, but thanks for playing
andyc
New member
Because it was the ceremonial law that was bondage. This she would have to observe for her husband's sake.
Last edited:
andyc
New member
I think you've probably misunderstood the point.
I'm talking about the strggle of a husband and wife dwelling together where the woman was under grace through faith in Christ, and the husband was bound to the Mosaic law. Such an arrangement could not be possible, but if it was, she couldn't experience freedom from the law for the sake of her husband.
Regardless of what you said, if a woman is unclean to her husband, she is under legal restriction. This was a constant reminder of the significance of carnal imperfection, which is supposed to be removed through faith in Christ.
You seem to be suggesting that being under the law was not bondage at all.
andyc
New member
Minor details? LOL
? yes ? keep asking stupid questions ? and expect ? idiotic result ? ? - :duh:
andyc
New member
Though obviously a hypothetical: were such a scenario the case, the principle of grace that Paul is talking about in the following; would apply.
1 Corinthians 10:27 If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake. 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:
I love these kinds of 'what ifs.'
Their usefulness is missed when they are viewed as mere speculation for the sake of speculation.
But when viewed for what challenge to thinking on a thing they might provide, it is then that they are often useful.
Because they force one to reflect on things one might not reflect on otherwise, and as a result; can bring not only greater clarity on things, as to important operating principles; but a faster realization not only with more depth; but from within a much wider spectrum.
Hi and I have not read where Paul writes on this subject , BUT under the LAW , YES !!
Do you have a verse , other than under the LAW ?
DAN P
Some years ago; while reading one heck of a full of holes argument by Ironside against O'Hair's assertion that the Apostle Paul preached one and the same Mystery both in Acts and Post-Acts; I found I was still able to learn something from Ironside despite both his false assertions and failure to prove that O'Hair was a Bullingerite.
It struck me way back then how much O'Hair had actually grown even clearer on things as a result of Ironside's opposition.
In this, I have to agree with Jordan's quip that "opposition is good fur ya; it can get ya tuh thinkin on some things ya might not have profited from otherwise" :chuckle:
In this, I have no problem with where the opportunity to reflect on a thing and actually benefit from it might come from; whether intended by the other guy, or not.
Besides; you must know by now I do not play favorites - who ever poses some thought; question, or whatever, I believe I might profit from; I'm there.
Try it some time; you'll see things where it sometimes only appears there was nothing to see.
Again; despite whatever the other guy's actual intent may, or may not have been
musterion
Well-known member
Some years ago; while reading one heck of a full of holes argument by Ironside against O'Hair's assertion that the Apostle Paul preached one and the same Mystery both in Acts and Post-Acts; I found I was still able to learn something from Ironside despite both his false assertions and failure to prove that O'Hair was a Bullingerite.
It struck me way back then how much O'Hair had actually grown even clearer on things as a result of Ironside's opposition.
In this, I have to agree with Jordan's quip that "opposition is good fur ya; it can get ya tuh thinkin on some things ya might not have profited from otherwise" :chuckle:
In this, I have no problem with where the opportunity to reflect on a thing and actually benefit from it might come from; whether intended by the other guy, or not.
Besides; you must know by now I do not play favorites - who ever poses some thought; question, or whatever, I believe I might profit from; I'm there.
Try it some time; you'll see things where it sometimes only appears there was nothing to see.
Again; despite whatever the other guy's actual intent may, or may not have been
As you like. For myself, when someone is a known quantity (as Andy is), I'll abide as I'm admonished in 1 Tim 6:4, 2 Tim 2:23, Titus 3:9...
andyc
New member
Now this person is something that won't flush :chuckle:
Well; its not like it was started by one of those who close a thread when they are not getting their way :chuckle:
andyc
New member
Well............that response could have come from a democrat. Sounded good, but avoided the question.
- Status