Whatbs in a NAME [Archive]

cordell (cordell)

12-22-2005, 03:58 AM

This is gonna be long, but I hope definitive. I’ll try to break it up with bite size paragraphs ( and only a little pretty color, TOPW).

Consider, if you will, the orders a certain king of Babylon gave to his chief eunuch concerning three young Hebrew men:

…to bring some of the people of Israel, both of the royal family and of the nobility, youths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king's palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans. The king assigned them a daily portion of the food that the king ate, and of the wine that he drank. They were to be educated for three years, and at the end of that time they were to stand before the king. Among these were Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah of the tribe of Judah.

These were Jews, with Jewish names: Daniel which means “God is my judge”, Hananiah which means “God is gracious”, Mishael—“Who is what God is?”, and Azariah “The LORD has helped”.

So what happens now? The eunuch assigns them new names; which are respectively:
Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego. Without going into a lot of speculative Chaldean etymology, suffice it to say that the new names reflect honor to a different deity. But the meaning of the naming is plain. The youths are captives at the disposal of a new king who has absolute authority and power over them—even to what they are to be called.

Does this have any further significance? We shall see.

cordell (cordell)

12-22-2005, 04:02 AM

Good king Josiah had a son—one Eliakim, who after his father was killed by the Pharaoh of Egypt and his brother Jehoahaz was deposed and placed in bonds, Pharaoh made this Eliakim king. But not before he made and ‘adjustment’ of sorts. He changed Eliakim’s name to Jehoiakim. Pharaoh had absolute and total rule over him—and showed this by giving him a new and different name.

In another place, 2 Kings 24, Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon takes captive king Jehoiachin (son of the above renamed Jehoiakim) and makes his uncle Mattaniah king in his place. But, you guessed it, yep—he changed his name to Zedekiah first. Why? Same song, different verse.

Okay, you’ve got the picture about reign, rule and authority over another, which in some parts of the Bible are exemplified by the giving of a name. But, you say, all your examples are of tyrants giving names to those who will rule in their place—and the Lord God is not a tyrant.

Right you are:

When Abram was ninety-nine years old the Lord appeared to Abram and said to him, I am God Almighty; walk before me, and be blameless, that I may make my covenant between me and you, and may multiply you greatly. Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham,for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and…

kings shall come from you.

cordell (cordell)

12-22-2005, 04:10 AM

Did the Lord Jesus engage in this?

See:

And he went up on the mountain and called to him those whom he desired, and they came to him. And he appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) so that they might be with him and he might send them out to preach and have authority to cast out demons. He appointed the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); James the son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder…)

Christ appoints, and gives authority (if you think about it, so do the above despots to the ones they renamed) and sends them out.

This they do in his name.

Consider also that holy Christian baptism is a naming ceremony which recognizes the authority of Christ over all things, including his disciples and empowers them:

And Jesus came and said to them, All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

And now see how the Father exalts and is in one sense over the Lord Jesus:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,

so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Christ was subject to the Father as a man in our place, he was first to be exalted—as a man and he reigns and will reign. He has authority and dominion over all things in heaven and in earth. Sound like an old command that was given somewhere long ago and far away to another man? A man called Adam?

In heaven we see this scene, as we are gathered to Christ:

No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship him. They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.

So what’s in a name?

What is behind all this naming going on?

What is the principle at hand and what in the world does it have to do with women and men and the discussion on authority?

cordell (cordell)

12-22-2005, 04:17 AM

In Genesis 1:5 God calls or names the light ‘day’ and the darkness ‘night’. This shows that he rules over all the cosmos by naming its spheres.

In creating man and woman he commands them to (yes, together—as viceregents) be fruitful and take dominion over all the earth.

This command is repeated in a different form here:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.

To ‘work’ is to cultivate, to make orderly but the other word ‘keep’ is significant to our discussion here. To keep means guard—as if against enemies or intruders—and there is a connotation of protecting life. When the Lord gives his restrictive command:

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die

This connotation becomes even more greatly significant. In giving this restrictive command, God confronts the Man with His rule over him.

Adam immediately sets out to obey the command of taking dominion over the earth and the living creatures which God has made.

How is this shown in Scripture?

Oh, yeah:

So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and brought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field.

So in subduing the earth and the living creatures that were brought to him Adam takes dominion in obedience to God’s command by naming them.

But even though he has governmental and ruling priority which is shown by his right to name creation,

HE IS STILL INADEQUATE.

Because alone he cannot fill the earth with a progeny in the image of God.

cordell (cordell)

12-22-2005, 04:20 AM

Why? He has no helper or help corresponding to him. This, says the Lord God, is NOT GOOD. (and I heartily agree.)

So the Lord causes a deep sleep to come over Adam and he does surgery on him and BUILDS (that’s the word) a WOMAN for him from a rib taken from him.

And then we have the very first words on record spoken by Adam, a beautiful poem:

The man said,

"This is now bone of my bones,
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man."

Note what Adam is doing here. He is not a tyrant. He is blessing her. He is in wonder of her. He is pleased to pieces with her, absolutely ecstatic.

And he is naming her.

Authority to name as in the earlier example of Gen.1:5 (and all the others), is authority to govern.

Authority to govern entails the responsibility of tending and cultivating (and in this case teaching the aforementioned restrictive commandment) as well as the guarding and protecting of her life and well being from any enemy.

So, in the CONTEXT in which Adam is given a helper or help corresponding to him, with whom he is to reign and fill the earth with a progeny born to them in the image of God who will for eons subdue the earth and reign on it—in this way he has authority over the woman.

Adam is not more valuable than the Woman, he is however her benevolent authority and ruler.

And as Martha says: that’s a good thing.

cordell (cordell)

12-22-2005, 04:25 AM

Now a brief look at the fall.

We know the story. Adam fails miserably and the Woman is deceived. They disobey God and sin by attempting to usurp His position. God confronts them ACCORDING TO THEIR AUTHORITY:

Man, woman, serpent. Then he pronounces sentence on the serpent, the woman and finally and most severely to the man.

Satan, once Lucifer a shining seraph, now faces his doom at the hands of the offspring of the woman.

The woman once called to fill the earth with a godly progeny now faces pain in childbirth and enmity with the one closest to her—her husband—whom she will in sin attempt to depose from his position of authority but—

He will rule over her.

Is this rule despotic or tyrannical? Is it heavy handed and cruel? Is it to be harsh and demeaning? The Scriptures use of this word, means ‘govern’ in the same way that the Lord lovingly provides for all his Creation. This is the gracious part of the statement—“He will rule over you.”

For Adam, instead of the beautiful paradise of God with all of its yielding trees and plants he will find an earth that resists his taking dominion over it—but the command of God stands—he will work it even though it is unyielding. This occurs because of his abdication of responsibility to GUARD HIS WIFE, instead the LORD says:

Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. "Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.

Instead of Adam taking dominion over the earth, it will now swallow back his body in death. But there was a promise in there somewhere and Adam heard it. And there was gospel grace in that promise and it concerned this Woman that had been given to him to love, teach, govern and protect—and yes, to NAME!

Here’s the promise again:

And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."

Her SEED would be a SAVIOR. His Savior and hers, born of the woman. So Adam responded to this protoevangelion, this GOSPEL by giving his WIFE a new name which recognized the promise of a Savior, even though there were only yet the two of them:

Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living.

He believed the promise of God, and responded in faith by taking back his authority and rule as husband and graciously gave his wife a name which predicted Salvation for all of us.

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-22-2005, 07:54 AM

I think you are not going to like this one: The addition to Abram's name is feminine: AbraHAm, according to Jewish scholars. It is feminine because the act of creating life is feminine and this is also why Elohim, God's name in the Creation account is from a feminine root. You guys can give the names if you like, we women create the life you name.

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-22-2005, 08:56 AM

Your assumption of authority and "guarding" is false and is based on a faulty understanding of Gen 3:16. You assume it to be God's command for the man to rule over the woman, yet this is not the case. Have you noticed whom God is speaking to? Does He say these words to Adam? No. He is talking to Eve. What does this mean? It means that God is not telling Adam to rule over Eve, He is telling Eve that Adam will rule over her without HIs permission. If you say that Gen 3:16 is God's command to the man to rule over the woman, you are also making God the source of the thorns and thistles that began to grow from the ground, instead of sin. You are also saying that all men should forever remain in agricultural professions, since if one is a command, then they are all. You can't pick and chose which one is a command and which one is not. In fact the whole passage speaks about consequences of sin, and does NOT include commandments from God. These were added because of sin, but they were not introduced until the time of Moses which is clear from Rom 5.

About names: if your theory is correct, you have just made two women the rulers of all Israel:

Gen 29:31-30:13
When the LORD saw that Leah was unloved, He opened her womb; but Rachel was barren. 32 So Leah conceived and bore a son, and she called his name Reuben; for she said, "The LORD has surely looked on my affliction. Now therefore, my husband will love me." 33 Then she conceived again and bore a son, and said, "Because the LORD has heard that I am unloved, He has therefore given me this son also." And she called his name Simeon. 34 She conceived again and bore a son, and said, "Now this time my husband will become attached to me, because I have borne him three sons." Therefore his name was called Levi. 35 And she conceived again and bore a son, and said, "Now I will praise the LORD." Therefore she called his name Judah. Then she stopped bearing.

Genesis 30

30:1 Now when Rachel saw that she bore Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister, and said to Jacob, "Give me children, or else I die!" 2 And Jacob's anger was aroused against Rachel, and he said, "Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?" 3 So she said, "Here is my maid Bilhah; go in to her, and she will bear a child on my knees, that I also may have children by her." 4 Then she gave him Bilhah her maid as wife, and Jacob went in to her. 5 And Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son. 6 Then Rachel said, "God has judged my case; and He has also heard my voice and given me a son." Therefore she called his name Dan. 7 And Rachel's maid Bilhah conceived again and bore Jacob a second son. 8 Then Rachel said, "With great wrestlings I have wrestled with my sister, and indeed I have prevailed." So she called his name Naphtali.

9 When Leah saw that she had stopped bearing, she took Zilpah her maid and gave her to Jacob as wife. 10 And Leah's maid Zilpah bore Jacob a son. 11 Then Leah said, "A troop comes!" So she called his name Gad. 12 And Leah's maid Zilpah bore Jacob a second son. 13 Then Leah said, "I am happy, for the daughters will call me blessed." So she called his name Asher.

There are a few more verses, but I think you get the point. Since the twelve sons of Jacob became Israel, you have succesfully created two female despoteoo's for the nation who considers female to be abnormal. Way to go!

cordell (cordell)

12-22-2005, 01:53 PM

Your assumption of authority and "guarding" is false and is based on a faulty understanding of Gen 3:16

Susanna, my 'assumption' if you will take the trouble to READ a little more carefully, has nothing to do with Gen.3:16 at all:

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.

The word keep is identical to the word 'guard' in the following verse:

He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.

You will note that the women above who name their children are NOT usurping their husband's authority but are in fact UNDER it, and they follow Eve's example:

Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord. And again, she bore his brother Abel.

A look at Prov.31 will show all the ways godly women behave to the praise of their husbands, thus becoming a crown to them, under their godly authority.

As far as Gen.3:16 is concerned, I have argued that this part:

And he will rule over you

is benevolent and gracious, rather than tyrannical, because of the word 'rule' means to have dominion over and is identical to the word 'rule' in this verse from KJV:

And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also

and in this one, where God views the situation as being good:

And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

So I would conclude, Susanna if there is any false assumption, it is yours.

cordell (cordell)

12-22-2005, 02:05 PM

One that ruleth well his own house

In the New Testament the concept is no different, the elders are to be exemplary in presiding over, guarding, protecting and giving care and attention to their families. Their 'rule'or management is never to be as tyrants (just like God is not one).

sidethorn (sidethorn)

12-22-2005, 02:12 PM

Carl Stevens sure was a tyrant for so many years!!!

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-22-2005, 06:14 PM

"One that ruleth well his own house"

Talks about kids, not wives. Don't miss the context, Cordell!!

ANd women are called rulers of the house as well in 1 Tim 5:14, but you of course won't consider it because of your false view.

And what about the name? Are Leah and Rachel the rulers of Israel, or not?

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-22-2005, 06:48 PM

You will note that the women above who name their children are NOT usurping their husband's authority but are in fact UNDER it, and they follow Eve's example:
"Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, I have gotten a man with the help of the Lord. And again, she bore his brother Abel."

You guys really know how to "circle the hot porridge like a cat" (finnish saying)!!! First you say that giving names is an act of affirming authority over that person, but of course when a woman does it, it is not the same thing! When it is a man, it is accurate, but when it is a woman, it is not. The same thing goes to Deborah: she was a female judge, yet some men claim that she was not a legitimate ruler of Israel because she was a women. ONLY because she was a woman! It seems to me that you guys invent these things just to keep your doctrines intact and women in silence and submission. That this is entirely unbiblical doesn't seem to bother you one bit, as long as your pride and arrogance is not challenged. Whenever it is (and I think I have done it here a few times), you get almost irate, which in its turn proves that I hit a nerve.

Yes, the sun rules over the skies because it is alone and doesn't have a companion to do the same thing. God rules alone, because there is only one God. Man doesn't rule alone because he isn't alone! Man has an equal, the woman, who rules with him. If you consider Gen 3:16 to be God's commandment to rule all women, could you give me a detailed description on the rest, and I mean what God meant, what implications it has and what other support is found in the rest of the Bible.

The ruling issue you mentioned is found in 1 Tim, in which it mentions that bishops and deacons should rule their houses well. The issue is children (and slaves), since if the man doesn't know how to raise his own children, how is he supposed to know how to raise the children of God. Wives are not mentioned for the very reason that the Bible considers them to be rulers of the household as well.

1 Tim 3:4-5
one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5(for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?);

1 Tim 3:12
Let deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well.

rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)

12-22-2005, 06:58 PM

" First you say that giving names is an act of affirming authority over that person, but of course when a woman does it, it is not the same thing! When it is a man, it is accurate, but when it is a woman, it is not."

It's called a double standard around here *LOL*

cordell (cordell)

12-22-2005, 07:29 PM

First you say that giving names is an act of affirming authority over that person, but of course when a woman does it, it is not the same thing! When it is a man, it is accurate, but when it is a woman, it is not.

Maybe we have a little language barrier, I am NOT saying that the woman does not have authority in the home--she does--but it is subordinate in Scripture to the man. Her naming her sons IS authoritative (she doesn't get to name her husband, HE names her e.g. Mrs. Ira Krizo)--that is why when a man marries he LEAVES his father and mother and CLEAVES to his wife. HE then becomes the presiding authority in HIS home.

As far as circling goes, Susanna, you haven't answered any of my points from contextual Scripture. You are now merely repeating what you have said earlier as though it was completely authoritative--sorry, hon, that don't make it so.

You don't have to agree with me, but if you want to discuss the issue you'll need to do more than repeat yourself.

I also made it very clear, as does scripture that the man and the woman are viceregents in the created order with the woman subordinate to the man.

The Bible, does not need to constantly repeat principles which the authors assumed its readers to understand previously, such as male leadership in the home--which is why women are not mentioned AGAIN in 1 Tim. 3, they are addressed earlier in Chapter 2. CONTEXT!

If you continue down the path you're on you may want to run off down to the courthouse and change your name back to your mom's (which she got from her father--doh!).

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-22-2005, 10:14 PM

Oh Cordell, you don't really seem to get it do you?
Let me explain exactly where the fallacy in your thinking lies.

1. "Authority to name as in the earlier example of Gen.1:5 (and all the others), is authority to govern."

You use this phrase to prove that women are under men's authority since Adam named Eve, but when a woman names a man, such as when Eve named Abel, you claim that it isn't the same thing. How come?
You use the same logic when the eunuch renames Daniel and his three friends:
"So what happens now? The eunuch assigns them new names; which are respectively:
Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego. Without going into a lot of speculative Chaldean etymology, suffice it to say that the new names reflect honor to a different deity. But the meaning of the naming is plain. The youths are captives at the disposal of a new king who has absolute authority and power over them—even to what they are to be called."

But when we find Rachel and Leah giving names to their sons, you claim that they are not in position of authority over their sons, since they are women. Had they been named by Jacob, it would have been a different thing, wouldn't it?

"Okay, you’ve got the picture about reign, rule and authority over another, which in some parts of the Bible are exemplified by the giving of a name."

If you apply this to one part of the Bible, you have to apply it to all parts of Scripture, otherwise you are engaged in false interpretation, which is reading into the text what is not there.

2. "No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham"

I would have thought that you were aware of the acient custom of name changing. In the old world, when something radical happened, a person's name was changed to signify the change in his or her life. The reason for this was that their names meant something (Susanna means a lily) and if their situation in life was changed, their names had to be changed accordingly. Sarai's name was changed to Sarah and Abram's name was changed to Abraham to signify the their new role as parents of Isaac. Interestingly, you highlighted that kings would come from Abraham, yet you omitted that Sarah was also the source of kings:

Gen 17:15-16
Then God said to Abraham, "As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. 16 And I will bless her and also give you a son by her; then I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples shall be from her."

Jacob's name was changed to Israel after he had wrestled with God. The name "heel cathcer" (which he recieved at birth since he caught on his brother's heel) wasn't accurate anymore and therefore the name "God prevails" was given to him.

The next example is that of Peter. Here we see how children were called after their fathers, which is what you highlighted as a proof of male superiority and rule, but Jesus takes that away by giving Simon a new name: Peter. He takes away the name which would link him to his father, and gives him a new identity which is rooted in that fact that he is a child of God, a new creation. This is also true of women. Even though we should honor our earthly parents, we are also children of God, and He is the one who gives us our new identity: royal priesthood and co-heirs with Christ. In Him we are all one body and members individually of Him which signifies that one cannot say to the other: I don't need you.

Matt 16:17-19
Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

So instead of being known as Jonah's son Simon, he became Peter, "a rock". This name was given to him by Jesus because he became one of the apostles who laid the foundation of the church.

Eph 2:19-22
Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone, 21 in whom the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.
NKJV

3. "The Bible, does not need to constantly repeat principles which the authors assumed its readers to understand previously, such as male leadership in the home--which is why women are not mentioned AGAIN in 1 Tim. 3, they are addressed earlier in Chapter 2. CONTEXT!"

Now, let me ask you how you come this conclusion since 1 Tim 2 speaks about the church and not the home? Are you saying that the teaching that refers to the church is also applicable to the teachings about the home? Are you saying that the principles that speak about society are also applicable to the church? In that case we should all live quiet lives even in the church and the home:
1 Tim 2:1-3
Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence.

This verse speaks about society and not the church, but if we are able to make passages about the church applicable in the home, then we should also take passages about society and apply them to the church. Get it?
I know that you are going to whine about this, call me what ever names you like (preferably not a donkey this time), insult me by insinuating that I cannot to read English correctly and continue with your interpretation based on a double-standard (you are so right about that one, Roberta) and a preconcieved idea of male supremacy. But please, go ahead, for the more you write, the more obvious your bias becomes.

gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)

12-22-2005, 10:49 PM

"we women create the life you name"
Gee wizz, I keep getting it wrong. I thought God was the creator of all life.
" you GUYSreally know how to circle the hot porridge like a cat"
Aaaaaahhhhhhhh bolderdash. suzanna, please do us a favor ( us other guys" quit associating everything that Cordell says to us guys.) He has his outlook and I have mine. I will be more than happy to let you know when I agree with what he says, so in the meantime, please don't tell me what I agree to or not. Give me that oppurtunity, would cha? meoww, meoww. GTP

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-23-2005, 02:39 AM

I was just being sarcastic Tom. It wasn't meant to be a general statement, as I referred to Cordell in the beginning of the sentence. And I wasn't referring to all men, only to men who hold views like Cordell, who won't admit that they begin with a bias and insist that it is all in the Bible. Sorry if I offended you Tom, I'll be more careful in the future.

david_munson (david_munson)

12-23-2005, 02:50 PM

What is in a name?
Character?
Integrity?
Honesty?

Does a name signify the personality of the individual that receives the name?
If I name my dog Cat,will it meow?

I certainly wouldn't name my son Sue,LOL.
http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/biggrin.gif
Yup,I couldn't resist again.

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL,
Dave

}

gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)

12-24-2005, 07:45 AM

SUZANNA, FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT SO EASILY OFFENDED, SO I TOO WILL APOLOGIZE TO YOU IF I OFFENDED YOU ALSO. REALLY, I DON'T THINK I EVER SET OUT TO OOFEND ANYONE. SOMETIMES FOLKS HERE ARE TOO SENSITIVE TO BE ON AN OPEN FORUM.
NOW ON TO THE BIGGEST QUESTION I HAVE. FIRST LET ME SAY THIS AND PLEASE, PLEASE, WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T BELIEVE FOR ONE SECOND THAT I BELIEVE WOMEN ARE ANYTHING LESS THAN...GOT IT? OK,
IS THERE ANYONE WHO BELIEVES THAT THE ECONOMICAL NECESSITY FOR A WOMEN TO WORK HAS GROWN MUCH STRONGER THAN EVER? I MEAN WHEN THE SCRIPTURES WERE PENNED WOMENS RESPONSIBILITIES AT HOME WERE MUCH DIFFERENT THAN WE SEE TODAY. HECK, EVEN IN MY MOTHERS DAY, A FAMILY COULD SURVIVE ON ONE INCOME. I AM GOING TO JUST GIVE THIS ONE VERSE IN MANY DIFFERENT VERSIONS. TITUS 2:4-5 NIV " THEN THEY CAN TRAIN THE YOUNGER WOMEN TO LOVE THEIR HUSBANDS AND CHILDREN, TO BE SELF CONTROLLED AND PURE, TO BE BUSY AT HOME TO BE KIND AND BE SUBJECT TO THEIR HUSBANDS, SO THAT NO ONE WILL MALIGN THE WORD OF GOD." SAME VERSES NOW IN THE AMPLIFIED V.5 TO BE SELF CONTROLLED, CHASTE, HOMEMAKERS."LIVING TRANS;
V.5 " SPENDING THEIR TIME IN THEIR OWN HOMES
KJV " KEEPERS AT HOME R.S.V.V.5 DOMESTIC
PHILLIPS V.5 " HOME LOVERS" NEB;V5 BUSY AT HOME. KJV V5 "KEEPERS AT HOME KEN WUEST TRANSLATE THE ORIGINAL GREEK TO SAY THIS "KEEPERS AT HOME" IS [OIKOURGOS] MEANING CARING FOR THE HOME, WORKING AT HOME, ONE WHO LOOKS AFTER DOMESTIC AFFAIRS.

I SAID ALL THIS TO SAY THIS. WAS PAUL INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT WHEN HE WROTE THIS? OF COURSE HE WAS. GOD HAS ALWAYS HAD A VERY DISTINCT PURPOSE FOR WOMEN IN THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THEIR FAMILY, HOME AND MOTHERHOOD. AT ONE TIME THE HOME, HUSBAND AND FAMILY WAS THE CENTER OF THE CHRISTAIN WOMENS LIFE. MANY WOMEN, MY OWN MOTHER INCLUDED THOUGHT MEN GOT THE RAW END OF THE DEAL BECAUSE AS SHE PUT IT, THEY (THE MEN) MISSED OUT ON THEIR CHILDRENS LIVES BECAUSE OF ALWAYS HAVING TO WORK. DO I THINK WOMEN DON'T VALUE MOTHERHOOD LIKE THEY USED TO? NO, BUT FACE IT, RAISING KIDS IN TODAYS SOCIETY JUST ISN'T WHAT IT WAS 50-75-100 YEARS AGO. WOMEN TOOK A LARGER ROLE BACK IN THE DAY IN TRAINING CHILDREN IN GODLY CHARECTOR, AND ALSO TEACHING THEM THE WAYS OF THE WORLD. MY MOM SAID THAT IT WAS A MOST HONORED POSITION. THE WOMEN WERE AROUND THE CHILDREN MUCH MORE THAN THE MEN, THEREFORE, THEY HAD MUCH MORE INPUT INTO A CHILDS LIFE. NOWADAYS, UNLESS SHE IS MAKING 50K OR MORE ALONG WITH HER HUBBY THAT WILL BE THE ONLY WAY SHE WILL EVEN BEGIN TO SPEND AND INVEST THE TIME NEEDED IN RAISING A CHILD, IS IF SHE HAS A NANNY TO COOK, CLEAN AND DO MUCH OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT A STAY AT HOME MOM WOULD DO.
EVEN THOUGH TIMES HAVE CHANGED, GOD'S WORD HAS NOT. I BELIEVE TODAY AS ALWAYS THAT THE WIFE OR WOMEN WAS MEANT TO BE A COMPANION, HELPER, PARTNER, AND THAT PARTICULAR CALL WAS ONE OF THE GREATEST CALLS ANYONE COULD EVER HAVE, MALE OR FEMALE. WHY DID GOD LAY THINGS OUT THE WAY HE DID? THE BIBLE TELLS US THAT IT WAS THE WOMAN WHO WAS DECEIVED. PERIOD. THAT'S WHY THINGS ARE THE WAY THEY ARE BIBLICALLY. NOT ANY OTHER FACTOR. THAT WAS ENOUGH FOR GOD. DOES THIS MAKE A WOMEN ANYTHING LESS? HELL NO, LIKE MY MOM SAYS, MORE PRIVLEDGED, WHY WHAT MAN WHO WORKS HIS BUTT OFF SIX DAYS A WEEK, WOULD RATHER NOT STAY AT HOME AND INVEST IN HIS CHILDRENS LIVES. I'D LOVE TO SPEND MORE TIME WITH MY KIDS AND SO WOULD MY WIFE, BUT SOCIETY ISN'T ALLOWING THIS FOR US AT THIS TIME. I PRAY THIS EXPLAINED MY POSITION IN A MORE GRACIOUS WAY. I THANK GOD FOR MY WIFE AND SHE THANKS GOD FOR ME AND WE RESPECT GOD'S ORDER IN OUR MARRIAGE AND IT HAS WORKED FOR 14 YEARSB SO FAR.
P.S. I JUST WANTED TO ADD THIS, MEN ARE TO SUBMIT TO THEIR WIVES AS CHRIST GAVE HIMSELF FOR THE CHURCH. DOESN'T SOUND LIKE ANYONE LORDING ANYTHING OVER ANYONE TO ME. IT'S KNOWN AS MUTUAL RESPECT. GOODNITE GTP SHALOM

dinaweena (dinaweena)

12-24-2005, 02:47 PM

Good points GTP!

gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)

12-24-2005, 03:06 PM

THANKS DINA,
I JUST THOUGHT THAT THE WOMENS ROLE IN THE FAMILY AND IN SOCIETY AS A WHOLE HAS CHANGED VERY MUCH OVER THE YEARS. I'M NOT KNOCKING WOMEN AT ALL WHEN I SAY THAT I BELIEVE THAT JUST BECAUSE THE WORLD AROUND US HAS CHANGED, THE WORD OF GOD IS CLEAR AND IS UNCHANGING. LAST POINT: I'D LOVE TO SEE IT GO BACK TO THE GOOD OLE DAYS FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT FAMILIES AS A WHOLE HAVE MISSED OUT ON MUCH WITHOUT THE MOM BEING AT HOME ALL THE TIME. I DON'T CARE HOW MANY BABYSITTERS WE HIRE OR NANNY'S, THEY COULD NEVER TAKE THE PLACE OF MOM. LOVE GTP

dinaweena (dinaweena)

12-24-2005, 05:19 PM

I agree....noe one but me raises my own children. Thank God, I'm able to take my 2 year old to work with me because I'm in an office by myself. If it wasn't for that provision, we'd just have to make do without my income.
I'm an old fashioned girl. BUt I'm not a pushover....I believe in the equality we have in Christ it's just that my husband isn't as good a homemaker (cook, cleaner, nuturer) as I am. He tries but fails miserably probably cause he's a man....HAHAHAHA!! Only kidding (about the 'man' part.
God Bless!!

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-24-2005, 06:46 PM

well, Tom, you would have loved the 50's, which is where your ideals come from. Sorry, but I have to burts your bubble: it isn't as simple as you make it sound. The scenario of a family being able to live on one person's income, have lots of kids and send them all to college was unique and solely dependent on the fact that the goverment made it possible by doling out billions in free tuitions, free houses and in some cases free land, to the returning soldiers of WW II. Young people were able to get married very young, half of the girls were already married before they turned 20. They didn't need to wait for men to graduate, since they didn't have a morgage to keep track of, and even if they did, the interest rates were extremely low. It has to be noted that life is suburbia was developed only for middle class white people, even though every "race" fought in the war, since the civil rights movement hadn't yet made everyone equal in this country. So, what was life like in Suburbia after the husbands had left with the family's only car and left his family stranded? It was heaven for those women who came from farms and had worked outside for all their lives since being inside all day was what they had dreamed of. It was also pleasant for those who didn't like changes, different people or differing views, since life in Suburbia was that of conforming to a standard. But for those, who didn't want or didn't know how to conform, the Suburbia was a nightmare in which they were trapped. Without a car, they were stranded and forced to spend most of their time in the house alone or with the kids, if they had any. If they didn't get along with their neighbors, they didn't have an other adult to speak with for days, especially if their husbands were workaholics or prone to having affairs. Sounds like a dream, doesn't it?

AT ONE TIME THE HOME, HUSBAND AND FAMILY WAS THE CENTER OF THE CHRISTAIN WOMENS LIFE.

Actually, this didn't happen until very recently. If you read history, you will notice that women have worked and hard. Before the industrial revolution, most people were farmers or traders and the whole family worked to bring an income to the family. Children were not taken care of the mother alone since they lived usually with extended family members, such as grandparents, unmarried uncles adn aunts, cousins etc. Older children were put in charge of younger children and most of the time they were left to fend for themselves. This idea that the mother stays home, plays with the kids and bakes cookies, has always been only for the middle and upper classes, since they are the only ones who are able to do so. Poor people have always had to have two jobs to support the family, regardless of whether they desired to stay home or not. The church, which has told middle class white women to stay home, hasn't thought the same of black women: after the civil war, the former slaves wanted to stay home and take care of their kids, but because the fields needed workers, they were told to go back to work. In 1800, while thousands of immigrants arrived at Ellis island, the church didn't find ways to support widows and single moms. Instead they had to find work, any work. In the Victorian era, upper class women didn't work, but the lower class women did since the upper class women needed maids, and the lower class women needed money. Not all maids were unmarried, and a lot of couples worked in the same household as maid and groom. The church never said that it was wrong for the lower class women to work; it was only considered wrong for the middle and upper classes. If a preacher would have said the women should stay at home and not work the fields in a farming town, he would have been kicked out. The women were needed and respected for their work.

I don't think Paul is telling all women to stay home. I think he is talking about their characters. If you look at this passage, you'll notice something: it talks about inner qualities, not geographic locations.

Titus 2:1-7
But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things-- 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed. 6 Likewise exhort the young men to be sober-minded,

Paul is not saying that all women should stay at home. He is saying that they should be disciplined, soberminded and temperate in all things, which includes taking care of the home. But homekeeping is not the only thing they are destined for, it is only one part of their lives. The problem is that we don't realize that women in those days were not allowed to leave the house much (Greek view) since they were supposed to live in absolute submission (Roman view). The fact is that a lot of women traveled in the NT era, either with the aspostles, or alone (such as phoebe). The new ideal that Jesus brough doesn't constrict women into the house and tell them to be good servants for their husbands and kids. But, it recognizes that Christian women should be disciplined in all areas of life.

This view, that women should stay at home leans heavily unto the idea that men rule in the household. And since he brings home the income, he has the right to decide how it is used. Spouses tend to consider themselves more equal in families where the mom works as well. So, the idea that women shouldn't work, is mainly to maintain the false idea of male rule in the family and absoulte submission of the wife. That it simply doesn't work isn't a fact the church has bothered itself with too much and continues to condemn families and individuals who have to work to survive.

gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)

12-24-2005, 10:08 PM

MY DAD WAS IN THE NAVY DURING WORLD WAR 2. MY MOM, BEFORE I CAME INTO THE PICTURE, WORKED IN A WAR FACTORY WELDING LOCKERS. WHEN I WAS ADOPTED, WE LIVED IN DUNDALK, HARDLY HIGH OR MIDDLE CLASS, THEN OR NOW. MY FATHERS FATHER WAS A COAL MINER. ALSO HE DROVE A HORSE DRAWN CART INTO AND OUT OF NEW YORK ALL DAY WITH LOGS ON IT. YOU HAVEN'T BURST MY BUBBLE IN THE LEAST. I HAVE NO BUBBLE. I'M TELLING YOU WHAT MY MOM RELATED TO ME. SHE WASN'T MISERABLE AS SHE WAS ABANDONED TO STAY HOME WITH THE KIDS, BECAUSE THERE WAS ONLY ONE CAR. SHE ENJOYED BEING A MOTHER. THERE WERE NO COLLEGE GRANTS OR FREE TUTITIONS IN OUR FAMILY. MY DAD WAS JUST SET IN HOW HE WAS GOING TO ACCOMPLISH HIS GOALS. HE WAS IN THE NAVY FOR 4 YRS, IMMEDIATLEY UPON HIS RELEASE HE JOINED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. BELIEVE THIS SISTER, THAT SURE WASN'T THE LIFESTYLES OF THE RICH AND FAMOUS. THE FOLKS YOU ARE SPEAKING ABOUT, I WENT TO SCHOOL WITH SOME OF THEM, BUT NOT MANY. MY MOM MADE SOME OF MY CLOTHES. SHE HAD A SOWING MACHINE. I NEVER WORE THE "IN" CLOTHES. WE STRUGGLED FINANCIALLY. WE ATE A BUNCH OF PASTA. POOR PEOPLE HAVE ALWAYS HAD TO HAVE TWO JOBS TO SUPPORT THE FAMILY. YOU MIGHT WANT TO CHECK OUT, IF YOU THINK COPS ARE NOT PAYED NOW, YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THEIR PAY STRUCTURE IN THE LATE 50'S EARLY TO LATE 60'S AND 70'S. THEY USED TO LAUGH AT THE CLOTHES I WORE TO SCHOOL. PUT CIGARETTES OUT ON THEM. WHILE EVERYONE WAS WEARING JACK PURCELL TENNIS SHOES, I WAS WEARING THE OLD WING TIPS, USED FROM GOODWILL. THAT'S WHERE WE DID MOST OF OUR SHOPPING. I REMEMBER OPNLY BEING ALOUD TO EAT SO MUCH. WE WERE NOT BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION MIDDLE CLASS OR UPPER.
ALSO THE SOCIAL CLIMATE HAS CHANGED. WITH THE INVENTION OF THE TELEVISION, FAMILIES HAVE BEEN SEPERATED AS NEVER BEFORE. NOW INSTEAD OF RADIO HOUR, WHEN THE WHOLE FAMILY GATHERED AROUND TO LISTEN TO A RADIO SHOW, THE KIDS ARE NOW BEING BABYSAT BY THE T.V. CHILDREN OF TODAY SPEND MANY, MANY MORE HOURS IN FRONT OF THE "IDIOT BOX" THEN IN ALL OF HISTORY. TIMES HAVE CHANGED US. 6/25/62 CLASSROOM PRAyer ruled unconstitutional. 6/17/63 the Bible is banned from reading in school, along with the Lord's prayer.The Bible was the primary text for 300 some years, then it's banned. 1980 Ten Commandments taken out of our schools. Let's not forget Rowe vs Wade, I believe that's it, now women are permitted to tell a man he had nothing to do with the conception of the child now in her womb and she has the right to murder that child if she wishes. God has been removed from the textbooks and it is being fought out in courts now as we speak about allowing "Intelligent Design" to be permitted into text books. No more Pledge of Allegiance or America the Beautiful" and on and on it goes. WHY BRING ALL THIS UP, BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, IN MY MOM'S DAY, SHE WAS BORN 1925, BEING A STAY AT HOME MOM WAS LOOKED AT ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THEN IT IS NOW. WHEN MOTHERHOOD WAS VIEWED AS THE GREATEST CALLING, NOW HAS TAKEN A BACK SEAT TO, WOMEN SHOULD BE PREACHERS AND TEACHERS. DO I WANT TO KEEP WOMEN IN THE HOUSE BAREFOOT AND PREGNANT? HECK NO. DOES THE BIBLE SAY THE MAN IS THE HEAD OF THE WOMAN. YES 1 COR 11:3. DO I BELIEVE ALL SCRIPTURE TO BE "GOD BREATHED" YES AND SO THAT IS WHERE I WILL LEAVE IT.
I GUESS THE BOTTOM LINE SUZANNA, everyone has their own thoughts on this subject. It will always boil down as to " what is your interpretation of that Scripture or this Scripture, but for myself. I have made my points as clear and precise as i could so in the interest of not " beating a dead dog" Merry Christmas, Suzanna. GTP

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-24-2005, 11:14 PM

You are absolutely right that it all comes down to our interpretation, which is exactly what I have been saying from the beginning.
Sorry, that you had such a hard childhood, but to make my point clear, I know of people who got land for free after they returned from WW II: my husband's grandparents. They entered into the lottery and won a large piece of property in Northern California, which needless to say, made their lives a lot easier.

Now, to motherhood. I agree with you that there is nothing wrong about being a mother. I am one myself and I enjoy it immensly. BUT I do disagree with the idea that the only calling for a woman is to be a mother and a wife. No one says that a man's only calling is to be a husband and a father, so why restrict mom's to the house? After Jonathan was born I stayed home with him for 11 months, while Ira was at work 11-14 hours a day. I did all the housework and shopping and took care of Jonathan. It was a seven days a week job for me, while Ira had two days off every week. This kind of an arragement didn't do us any good and eventually we began to notice that our marriage was falling apart. Last April we bought an Inn and started a fine dining restaurant. In the beginning we had the same mindset of work separation, I did mine and Ira did his. Our relationship didn't improve. Slowly, as Jonathan began to become more independent, we began to share our jobs more with each other. Instead of us seeing our apartment as only my responsibility, Ira began to clean as well. I began to help him in the kitchen, which gave him time to be with Jonathan. We began to relate to each other in a different way, as absoulte equals, instead of Ira seeing me as a subordinate wife. And as a result, our marriage is doing fabulously and Jonathan is a happy and very secure child since he gets to be with his dad as well as his mom. Make no mistake, we have a nanny as well, since I need to serve five days a week and Ira needs to cook. But guess what, Jonathan loves to be with his nanny and doesn't mind it all. We are all different in our ways to relate to him and it is good for him to be with different kinds of people, not only mom. In the "good old days", kids didn't just hang out with mom all day, they were taken care by a variety of relatives and friends, which prepared them to be social beings.

Did you know that more Christian marriages end up in a divorce than secular? Did you also know that there is a huge number of Christian families in which domestic violence and abuse is common? Did you know that the idea of the headship of the husband and the submission of the wife is the reason for this? 92 % of pastors, who were asked the question: "would you recommend divorce or separation for a woman whose husband beats her," said no, since the wife is supposed to live in submission and not allowed to leave her "head". In one of the more extreme cases a pastor counseled a battered woman with these words: "If he kills you, it is for the glory of God." The view which states that women should live in submission regardless of the husband's conduct is rooted in the idea that the wife has to obey the man like he was God (found for example in the book "Me? Obey him?"). If you say that the husband is the head of the wife, you have created the scenario in which such horrors are likely to happen. In the other model, in which they are both equal, the possibility is removed, since both are told to elevate the other instead of themselves. This is also consistent with the rest of the Bible which tells us to serve each other through love.

gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)

12-25-2005, 02:25 AM

Suz,
I will leave you with this. Is a woman's only calling to be a housewife? No, is the man the head of the woman according to the above Scripture in Corinthians? Yes. Now, let's take it one better. Jesus told his disciples that we are to "love one another, as I have loved you" Sue, if we can all get that one straight, there will never be a problem, question or solution we can't face or handle. If men would love women as Christ loved them and gave Himself for them and vice versa, what would be left to say? As far as cleaning jobs around the house. First, the house belongs to the Lord, so if we clean, we are cleaning His house. We share according to what we can handle physically.Lisa cleans low, I clean high. Also we have a teenanger who helps with a great deal. One last point, I don't say the husband is head of the wife, the Bible does. When you say that "i" say that, you make it personal. It's not, just like many who don't want to hear, Jeus is the Way, Truth, and the Life, "NO MAN comes to the Father but by me" That verse offends many people. Then they will say, your saying there is only one way to get to God? No, I'm not, Jesus is, if you have a problem with that, take it up with Him. Merry Christmas to you and yours Sue. It has been a pleasure sharing different views together. We made it through and fulfilled the Scripture that says " Come, let us reason together." Thank you so much for your portion. I respect you and your portion. As far as those idiots that think because the Scriptures say that a man is head of the woman to mean, " Get in the kitchen make me my dinner, then get neked, we going to make us a family" Then they need a woman like Dina, or Sojo to straighten em out. I'm sure your not letting any of that cave man bull to happen in your house. Then they need to learn what a real woman desires. Maybe that should be the opening question on the women's application for perspective hubbies." Lol, LoL

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-25-2005, 04:10 AM

Merry Christmas to you too, Tom. Hope we can continue the discussion next year?

dinaweena (dinaweena)

12-25-2005, 05:06 AM

Wow GTP! I'm actually flattered by that remark :-)
As far as headship goes, I think of it more as a protective thing. Being a military wife I can understnad the concept of 'chain of comand'....that's more what I think of my relationship with my husband as. I have my input, my opinions....he regards me as a woman of wisdom with a great deal of insight, and then he makes a final decision based on what we've agrees is best. We both get the blessing if something goes as planned, but he takes the brunt of the responsibility if things go down the pooper...in that respect I act as a helper, to get him through whatever tough times we have and I know that he will always take care of me, even to his own detriment.
Much love to you GTP.
Susanna- I'm hoping that if this conversation goes further you are able to not come across so militant and anti-male...there is much more agreement with your perspective than you give credit for. The things that we don't agree on I'll leave to the Holy Spirit. God Bless you.
MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!!

gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)

12-25-2005, 07:35 AM

DINA,
AS WE HAVE SPOKEN IN THE PAST, I BELIEVE THAT YOU NOT ONLY UNDERSTAND MY VIEW, BUT AGREE WITH IT IN MANY WAYS. WHY, BECAUSE IT WORKS FOR YOU AND YOUR HUBBY AS IT DOES ME AND MY WOMAN OF VIRTUE. MY WIFE IS A LOT LIKE YOU DINA IN THAT, NO ONE IS TELLING HER WHAT SHE CAN OR CANNOT DO. THAT AIN'T GITTIN IT IN EITHER OF OUR HOUSEHOLDS.
MY WIFE SUBMITS TO ME AS I SUBMIT TO CHRIST AND LOVE HER AS HE LOVED US AND GAVE OF HIMSELF FOR US. I LOVED YOUR MILITARY ANALOGY. THAT CERTAINLY PUT IT ALL INTO PERSPECTIVE. SEE THAT, YOUR NOT EVEN MY WIFE, BUT ANOTHER IN THE BODY WHO JUST HAPPENS TO BE FEMALE AND YOUR PORTION HAS COMPLIMENTED MINE BEAUTIFULLY. THAT'S HOW IT HAPPENS IN OUR HOME.
MY LOVE, ADMIRATION, AND WHOLEHEARTED COMMITMENT TO MY WIFE IS NOT RARE, THERE ARE MANY MEN LIKE MYSELF, THEY JUST HAVE TO BE FOUND. IF YOU HAVE FOUND A GODLY MAN AND HE ISN'T GETTING IT, WOMEN LIKE LISA OR DINA OR SOJO WILL LET THEM KNOW RIGHT WHERE THEY NEED TO STAND IF WE WANT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM. I DO NOT BELIEVE THE POLL TAKEN OF THE PASTORS WHO SAID IF A WOMAN IS BEING BEATEN SHE SHOULD STAY WITH HER MAN. WHERE WAS THAT POLL TAKEN? WERE THEY PASTORS IN THE KLU KLUX KLAN. THEY ALSO HAVE A DISTORTED VIEW OF SCRIPTURE.
DINA, I DON'T KNOW IF YOUR LIKE ME IN THIS OR NOT. THERE ARE MANY SCRIPTURES THAT I MIGHT NOT PERSONALLY AGREE WITH, FOR INSTANCE THE BIBLICAL STANCE ON HOMOSEXUALS FOR INSTANCE. I WATCHED A MOVIE ONCE WHERE THERE WAS A GAY GUY IN IT WHO WAS HELPING THIS WOMAN WHO HAD A HORRIBLE CRACK COCAINE PROBLEM. NOT ONLY HAD HE GIVEN THEM (HER AND HER KID) APLACE TO STAY, BUT THIS HOMOSEXUAL READ THE BIBLE EVERY MOURNING AND NIGHT. SPENT TIME IN PRAYER AND WAS ON THE CHOIR IN CHURCH. THAT WAS THE ONLY TIME HE/SHE DRESSED AS A MALE WAS IN CHURCH. DOES THIS PERSON GO TO HELL? THE BIBLE SPEAKS MUCH ABOUT MEN BEING LOVERS OF THEMSELVES, FORNICATORS e.t.c. DOES EVERYONE AGREE THIS PERSON EVEN THOUGH THEY LOVE THE LORD WILL GO TO HELL? ( LAKE OF FIRE) MOST PEOPLE WOULD SAY, WITHOUT A DOUBT BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT THIS PERSONS ACTIVITIES. I MIGHT NOT LIKE EVERYTHING THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT A CERTAIN SUBJECT, BUT, IT IS THE BIBLE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, NOT SOME SECULAR MAGAZINE. HOW MANY ARE OFFENDED THAT JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY TO THE FATHER. WHETHER OR NOT I LIKE THAT THE BIBLE SAYS THAT IS TOTALLY SECONDARY. "GOD SAID IT, I BELIEVE IT, THAT SETTLES IT." PRETTY MUCH HOW IT GOES FOR ME OR OTHERWISE WE WILL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE. DOCTRINAL DISCUSSIONS CAN GO ON FOREVER WITH EITHER SIDE AGREEING, MANY TIMES CAUSING UNDUE STRESS BECAUSE SOMEONE IS SO ADAMANT ABOUT WINNING THE OTHER PERSON OVER TO THEIR POINT. I GUESS MY QUESTION FOR YOU DINA IS, ARE YOU LIKE ME WHEN IT COMES TO, THE BIBLE SAID IT, I BELIEVE IT, THAT SETTLES IT. LIKE WE SPOKE ABOUT BEFORE "JESUS IS LIFE AND THE REST IS JUST DETAILS" I'M JUST LOOKING TO EXPERIENCE THE LIFE OF THE LORD, ESPECIALLY IN MY MARRIAGE. I WILL NEVER EXPERIENCE THAT IF I BELIEVE MY WIFE TO BE ANYTHING LESS THAN MY EQUAL. THAT BEING SAID, WE BOTH HAVE OUR DIFFERENT STATIONS IN LIFE OR AS YOU MIGHT SAY DINA, OUR DIFFERENT POST AND I HAVE JUST DECIDED TO STAY AT MY POST. IF I ABANDON MY POST, THE ENEMY MIGHT RUN OVER THE CAMP. I TRUST GOD TO KNOW EXACTLY WHY AND HOW HE DESIGNED ME AND FOR WHAT PURPOSE I WAS DESIGNED. BOTH SEXES HAVE THEIR LIMITATIONS, BOTH SEXES HAVE THINGS THAT THEY NATURALLY EXCELL IN. I'M GLAD THE LORD MADE US DIFFERENT, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE ARE NOT, FEARFULLY AND WONDERFULLY MADE. I'D BETTER STOP. I HAVE A SIX YEAR OLD WHO WILL BE LOOKING TO WAKE ME UP AWFULLY EARLY. YES, THAT WAS A COMPLIMENT BY THE WAY DINA AND I'M GLAD YOU TOOK IT THAT WAY. SUE, I WILL PRAY THAT YOU TAKE JUST A LITTLE ADVICE FROM DINA. SHE MAKES MUCH SENSE. love ya in HIM tom

dinaweena (dinaweena)

12-25-2005, 04:35 PM

GTP-There are things in scripture that seem harsh and unforgiving which is not who I know my Father to be. I tend to believe that the nature of the One who lives in us is bigger than any fleshly sin. I believe in a definite seperation between our soul/body and spirit and think that many times we chose to live in the soul part and say it is spirit. IF a homosexual says he is saved and continues to live in his homosexuality, that may be the only part of his life that I concentrate on and forego the obvious fruit he might have. Does the Father look upon his flesh or does He only see His beloved Son? I don't know....I can't judge that. I don't have to agree with someone's lifestyle or belief that they were 'born' a certain way, but I am not God. Also, I am not responsible to answer FOR anybody except myself- did I allow the Life of the Son to be apparent to the world around me? Was my flesh secondary to the Life of Christ in me? Did I conciously choose to let His life be mine? Did I choose daily to see Christ in it all? I love knowing that in Christ there is no difference to the Father what sex I am or if I am perfect in obeying all the laws....I know that He says if I love Him I'll obey Him. I know I can't do that so I surrender any supposed control I think I have and let my life be His. I have to trust the same Christ in my husband and let God be God in His life. If my husband chooses to be 'anti-Christ' insomuch as he doesn't allow the True Nature of the One who lives in him come through, then I don't respond to his ungodliness. This doesn't leave him room to abuse me. If he chooses to abuse me, since I have my own relationship with the Father that is not an extension of my husbands, I can go on with God and leave my husband to his misery. I have freedom there....there isn't any bondage. I think more often than not, it's the WOMEN who are sexist. Feminism has ruined our society, our ideals, our innocence, our children, our respect for the past. I'm glad I can vote....I should have that right as a human being. I don't however, appreciate that the society my son will grow up in is geared primarily towards making life easy for ungrateful, irresponsible women, where he won't have a chance to do much because he is a white male so therefore all the terrible things that happened 200-300 years ago are his fault, where he will be ridiculed for being moral and Godly. That being said, both my daughter and my son will grow up knowing Who they are in Christ. They will have no fear of condemnation because the Love of our Father is perfect and it casts out all fear. Where they will know that if they screw up, big or little, it wont matter eternally (no, not in the 'antinomian' sense). My children will know that male and female roles COMPLIMENT each other, one does not trump the other.
God Bless everyone!

p.s. GTP- all that being said, yes, I believe every word of scripture is profitable and will speak to me. I tend to view the OT as more of a historical view for and to the Jews...I have no biblical history (as a Gentile) since before Christ my ancestry was pagan (I'm assuming) but that doesn't give the OT any less significance as a testament to Who God is. I believe scripture is all that it is supposed to be.

anon_brief (anon_brief)

12-25-2005, 05:22 PM

Dina,

I can't agree that feminism has ruined our society for the following reasons:

- it is a misrepresentation of feminism (see link - a better word would be sexism, I think)
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/feminism
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/sexism

- our society isn't "ruined"

- the changes that you perceive as negative in society cannot be directly and completely attributed to feminism (as you define it)

Also, in your previous post to Suzanna Krizo, you used the word "militant". Perhaps "adamant" would have been a less inflammatory choice, unless you chose it purposefully.

I hear words like "militant" and I hear sweeping generalisation in it. I hear a put-down toward someone who has a less-than-traditonal opinion of what a woman's role should be. That doesn't match with my perception of who you are.

I doubt if any of us (women) would be here (on a internet message board) voicing our opinions without society having been changed by our "militant" sisters.

While I may not see eye to eye with what I term "radical women sexists", I do appreciate the freedoms that I experience on a daily basis as a direct result of their actions.

To me, it's like those folks who don't want to hear "Merry Christmas", but still accept the Christmas bonus check...

Sign me,

AB - the married, cookie-baking, stay-at-home soccer mom - by CHOICE - not by societal mandate

dinaweena (dinaweena)

12-25-2005, 05:50 PM

anon- you are right....I was unable to think of another word for 'militant' at the time. Although I have to admit in my view, the way susanna comes across with her, "i have studied and therefore all of you GUYS are wrong" attitude has become more militant. She does not seem to notice when anyone, particularly men, agree with any of her statements.
as for your 'feminism/sexism' referance, again, you are right. I actually did mean sexism in society seems to be ok as long as it is anti-male....same with prejudice as long as it is anti-white. I do NOT disagree with much of what Susanna has said and my statement was not meant to be a put-down, just an observation of her 'tone' sometimes. I apologize, Susanna, if it seemed that way. I too am thankful for the ladies who have gone before who have made it possible for us to be considered integral to society much less citizens.
Thanks for pointing that out AB.

anon_brief (anon_brief)

12-25-2005, 06:31 PM

Not a problem.

Just a point of sensitivity relative to watching a brillant, industrious single mother eke out a living in a man's business environment(i.e. twice the work for half the pay and lots of clueless bosses).

And, I'm thinking, Susanna's original discourse was with JF - not a counter-point you'd take from a position of weakness. LOL

Hope you're enjoying your day! It's pretty peaceful here - thanks be to God! Now, there's a REAL Christmas miracle...

karen (karen)

12-25-2005, 11:16 PM

AB-I always appreciate your sane, logical view of things.

Dina-I don't think Susanna is militant at all. Perhaps what you perceive is defensiveness, and that is a response to the presumption that equality of the sexes is anti-Scriptural.

Susanna-I have loved reading your posts. Even though I don't have your deep trust in the Bible, I respect you as a scholar. And it is very satisfying to watch you stand your ground with the guys.

gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)

12-26-2005, 06:20 AM

HOPE EVERYONE HAD A GREAT DAY!!

MY THOUGHTS ON MILITANT. BEING THAT DINA COMES FROM A MILITARY FAMILY, MILITANT ISN'T AS DEEP AS ONE WHO ISN'T IN THE MILITARY WOULD PERCEIVE IT TO BE. I LISTENED TO A GENTLEMAN PREACHING TODAY A MESSAGE ON THE SUBJECT WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HERE. HE WAS SAYING THAT THE WORD "SUBMIT" WAS A MILITARY TERM, KIND OF LIKE SUBMITTING TO THE ONE ON CHARGE. NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE LORDING ANYTHING OVER YOU, BUT AS THE GUY SAID, THERE HAS TO BE A LEADER, A DECISION MAKER. THEN HE GAVE THE ANALOGY OF HAVING TWO BOSSES AND WHAT A MESS THAT CAN BE.
I WAS TALKING TO MY DEAR SWEET MOM TODAY AGAIN AND SHE SAID WOMEN SOMETIMES TODAY DON'T REALLY REALIZE HOW AMAZING THE WOMAN WAS BACK IN HER DAY. SHE HAD MUCH RESPONSIBILITY, HER JOB AT HOME WAS 24/7. SHE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PHYSICAL, AND SPIRITUAL WELL BEING OF THE CHILDREN. ALONG WITH TAKING CARE OF MANAGING A HOUSEHOLD. MAKING ENDS MEAT WITH VERY LITTLE. AGAIN SHE TOLD ME THAT IT WAS HER THOUGHT THAT THE MEN HAD IT PRETTY EASY BECAUSE ALL THEY HAD TO DO IS GO OUT AND WORK, BE A PROVIDER. SHE TOOK CARE OF THE BILLS, SICK CHILDREN, COOKING, CLEANING, GO SHOPPING, BEING THERE FOR HER KIDS SINCE DAD WAS USUALLY GONE. SHE WAS THE ONE WHO TAUGHT THE SPIRITUAL PRINCIPLES. SHE SAID WHEN DAD WOULD COME HOME, HE WAS TIRED AND JUST WANTED TO EAT AND CHILL OUT. I REALLY LIKED THE WAY THAT SHE SAID THE WOMEN OF HER DAY WERE "AMAZING" LIKE SUPERWOMEN. MY MOM SAID AT ONE TIME SHE EVEN TOOK ON A PART TIME JOB, JUST TO HELP A LITTLE WITH THE BILLS. SO TO SAY SHE DID THAT AND STILL DID EVERYTHING ELSE SHE HAD ALWAYS DONE MAKES ME APPRECIATE HER MORE AND MORE EVERYTIME I SPEAK TO HER. I WON'T EVEN GET INTO THE SACRIFICES SHE MADE TO MAKE SURE WE HAD. MY DAD WAS A TYRANNT, BUT LET ME TELL YOU THIS, MOM WASN'T HAVEN'T ANY OF THAT. SHE WOULD TELL HIM OFF IN A MINUTE. I'LL NEVER FORGET ONE SUNDAY WHEN WE SAT DOWN TO EAT SOME SPAGHETTI AND MY DAD LOOKED AT THE BOWL OF PASTA LIKE IT WAS A BOWL OF ROTTEN FISH. SHE PROCEEDED TO WALK OVER TO HIS SIDE OF THE TABLE ASK US KIDS IF WE WANTED ANYMORE, THEN ASK HIM WHAT WAS WRONG AND HE WAS JUST BEING NASTY AND SAID IT TASTED LIKE CRAP. SHE TOOK THE WHOLE BOWL AND DUMPED IT RIGHT OVER HIS HEAD.WAS MY DAD THE FINAL DECISION MAKER WHEN IT CAME TO IMPORTANT MATTERS? YES, BUT EVEN HE HAD ENOUGH SENSE TO ASK HER OPINION BEFORE HE MADE ANY DECISION.
I AM THE PRIEST OF MY HOUSEHOLD AND THE FINAL DECISION MAKER. I DO NOT TELL MY WIFE ANYTHING, BUT SHE SAYS THAT I AM A RARE TYPE. SHE BELIEVES THAT MANY MEN WHO GET THE IDEA IN THEIR HEAD THAT THEY ARE THE HEAD OF THEIR WIFE, THEY WILL TAKE FULL ADVANTAGE OF THAT FACT. I CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT LINE OF THINKING BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH I VALUE MY WIFES PORTION. ON THAT NOTE, WE KNOW THERE HAS TO BE ONE WHO MAKES THE FINAL DECISION. MANY TIMES AND I MEAN MANY, SHE JUST RUNS STUFF PAST ME AND ASK ME WHAT I THINK. MY THOUGHT HAS ALWAYS BEEN IF YOU THINK IT'S ALRIGHT, I TRUST YOUR JUDGEMENT. THE BOTTOM LINE IS ALWAYS IF IT'S MY CALL OR NOT, I REAP ANYTHING BAD THAT HAPPENS FROM A WRONG DECISION MADE BY MY WIFE OR ME. I TAKE THE BLAME. I WANT THE BLAME. IT'S MY CALL TO LEAVE DECISIONS IN MY WIFES HANDS AND IF SOMETHING BLOWS UP, I'LL TAKE THE HEAT. I'M GLAD TO TAKE IT. MY WIFE SUBMITS TO ME NOT BECAUSE I MAKE HER, BUT BECAUSE SHE SUBMITS TO THE CHRIST IN ME. I HAVE ALWAYS TOLD HER NEVER SUBMIT TO ME IF I'M TRYING TO GET YOU TO SIN. I SUBMIT TO HER BECAUSE OF THE LORD I SEE IN HER. I SUBMIT TO CHRIST IN MY WIFE. BOTH SUBMISSIONS ARE NOT BURDENSOME, BUT COME FROM MUTUAL RESPECT AND ADMIRATION FOR THE LORD WE SEE IN EACH OTHERS LIVES.
IT HAS BEEN REALLY INTERESTING HEARING EACH ONES PORTION ON THIS SUBJECT. WHAT IS REALLY KIND OF COOL IS HOW CLOSE WE REALLY ARE IN MUCH OF OUR THINKING. THANK ALL OF YOU FOR THE OPURTUNITY TO SHARE. LIKE WE SAID ELSEWHERE WE SEE THROUGH A GLASS DARKLY NOW, SO NO MATTER HOW MUCH WE KNOW, WE ONLY CAN KNOW IN PART. THE BEST NEWS IS THAT ONE DAY, EVERYTHING WILL BE CLEARER THAN IT'S EVER BEEN. ONE DAY WE WILL ALL SIT DOWN TO CHRISTMAS DINNER WITH THE APOSTLE PAUL AND ASK HIM IN PERSON WHAT EXACTLY WAS HIS THOUGHT ON ANY PARTICULAR SUBJECT AS HE WAS INSPIRED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT TO WRITE THE THNGS HE WROTE. NOW THAT'S THE DAY I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO. THE WEDDING SUPPER OF THE LAMB IS GOING TO BE ONE FINE MEAL, NO MATTER WHO SERVES IT, MEN, WOMEN OR ANGELS. SUZANNA AND DINA, IT WOULD BE MY HONOR TO SERVE YOU SOME OF THAT JESUS PIE EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT, ALONG WITH MY WIFE. LOL, LOL.

MY PRAYER IS FOR ALL THE TROOPS WHO ARE IN FOREIGN LANDS MAKING SURE WE HAVE OUR FREEDOM THIS EVENING. MAY GOD BLESS ALL OF YOU, WOMEN AND MEN ALIKE. YOU ARE OUR HEROES!

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-27-2005, 12:30 AM

Dina, you are right that I may sometimes sound a bit harsh, but it is not against men in general, since I believe that we are absolutely equal and I respect men as my brothers just as much as I respect women as my sisters. The fact is that Jim and I haven't always been best friends here at FN and our intense discussions may seem harsh sometimes to the outsiders since I answer him with the same tone as he writes to me. I wouldn't write such responses to you, for example, but Jim can take them, since he is able to write such text himself. Also, anon brief is right, I am not arguing from a bitter and vendictive standpoint. I just happen to enjoy discussions, even heated ones, since the more we debate, the more I learn. And the more I learn, the clearer view I have of things. I believe that dogmas destory faith since where there is no space for discussions, there is no safeguard for truth.

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-27-2005, 05:53 PM

"I DO NOT BELIEVE THE POLL TAKEN OF THE PASTORS WHO SAID IF A WOMAN IS BEING BEATEN SHE SHOULD STAY WITH HER MAN. WHERE WAS THAT POLL TAKEN? WERE THEY PASTORS IN THE KLU KLUX KLAN. THEY ALSO HAVE A DISTORTED VIEW OF SCRIPTURE."

Well Tom, you can read about it in Jame M. and Phyllis Alsdurf's book "A pastoral response" pp. 165-180.
If they were from KKK, that would be a great thing, but unfortunately these pastors are found in the churches we say defend the faith. Scary, isn't it!

arron (arron)

12-27-2005, 06:00 PM

no woman should suffer abuse of beating from a man who is beating her

gone_to_pa (gone_to_pa)

12-27-2005, 11:59 PM

SUSANNA,
IF THAT'S TRUE, THAT'S SOME SCARY, SCARY STUFF. HOW COULD YOU HAVE THE AUDACITY TO CALL YOUR SELF A DEFENDER OF ANYTHING AND NOT DEFEND SOMEONE WHO IS PRETTY MUCH HELPLESS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES. NO,NO, NO, BEFORE ANYONE GETS STARTED, I'M NOT SAYING WOMEN ARE DEFENSLESS, JUST SEEMS TO ME IF YOU HIT A WOMAN, YOU CAN HIT A CHILD TOO. I WOULD ADVISE ANY WOMAN WHO IS GETTING BEAT UP, TO WAIT UNTIL HE GOES TO SLEEP AND THEN....... YOU'LL HAVE TO E-MAIL ME FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
SUE, AND WHAT IS THE PREMISE FOR THIS COUNSEL? RECONCILIATION? THOSE PASTOR'S NEED THEIR ••••• KICKED. MY COUNSEL HAS ALWAYS BEEN "GET OUT NOW" AND IF, THAT'S A BIG "IF" THE MAN GOES THROUGH ALL THE HOOPS THAT YOU AND THE STATE WANT HIM TO JUMP THROUGH, THEN AND ONLY THEN SHOULD YOU PRAY AND SEE WHAT THE LORD HAS TO SAY. I HAVE TRULY SEEN IT GO BOTH WAYS. REMEMBER, MOST PEOPLE WHO ABUSE HAVE BEEN ABUSED. I WAS THE FIRST IN A LONG LINE TO BREAK THE CHAIN SO THAT IT WOULDN'T BE PASSED ONTO MY CHILDREN. I HAVE SEEN GUYS SEEK COUNSEL AND NEVER HIT THEIR WIFE AGAIN, AND ON THE OTHER HAND, I HAVE SEEN THEM GO THROUGH COUNSELING, ANGER MGMNT. e.t.c. THEN IT WASN'T TO LONG BEFORE THEY WENT BACK TO THEIR OLD WAYS.
PHYSICAL ABUSERS CAN FOOL A GREAT MANY PEOPLE. YES, I HATE TO TELL ANYONE ANYTHING WHEN COUNSELING THEM, ( BECAUSE I LIKE TO LEAVE ROOM FOR THE SPIRIT TO MOVE) BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO YOUR LIFE BEING TAKEN AND THAT'S WHAT'S AT STAKE, WHETHER YOU WANT TO FACE IT OR NOT, MY FIRST WORDS ARE, "WHEN CAN WE GO GET YOUR STUFF" I'LL TAKE YOU SO NOTHING HAPPENS" ANY PASTOR WHO COUNSELS SOMEONE LIKE, THAT MIGHT BE FACING CHARGES IF ANYTHING HAPPENS TO THAT PERSON. ( at least i would hope they might get an accessory charge) I'M SORRY SUSANNA, WHEN I THNK OF SOMEONE PUTTING THEIR HANDS ON SOMETHING AS DELICATE AS A WOMAN, I WON'T EVEN TAKE IT ANY FURTHER, LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY, I'D LIKE TO TALK WITH THEM FOR ABOUT AAAHHHHH A MINUTE, TWO AT THE VERY MOST. GTP SHALOM

nonotone (nonotone)

12-28-2005, 02:04 AM

Friends,

What follows is not *directly* related to this thread, but I believe is in the spirit of it.

There are actually many in Christ's Church who do not see spousal abuse as grounds for divorce - separation maybe, so counseling can take place with a "safe place" for the abused one (yes, in rare cases it's the man that is battered). However, I believe and so do some pretty convincing scholars that because the man is commanded to "cleave" to his wife (Gen 2:24) that implict in this is acting in her best interest at all times, to the best of his ability, with the help of God and a commmunity of faith.

It seems pretty simple, therefore, that if a man (or woman) cannot "cleave" and act peacefully toward their spouse (1 Cor 7:16b) then their marriage covenant is pretty much broken. It is also my firm conviction, based on God's design for marriage and the overwhelming testimony of the Holy Scriptures, that consistent, willful defrauding of the marriage bed (by either spouse) is really no different than adultery in the violation of the marriage "one-flesh" and therefore breaks the marriage covenant as well. In fact defrauding is more or less "passive" adultery.

I'm well aware that many so-called "conservative evangelicals" would disagree with the aforementioned positions. It is sad that over-straining at Greek exegesis is what often produces this evangelical intransigence toward what in many cases is a truly broken marriage covenant in Biblical terms.

Having said this, let us all endeavor with great love and patience to safeguard our own marriages through obedience to Jesus Christ AND do all in our powers to apply the Grace of God toward repairing those marriages that are heading toward destruction.

Brian Bowman
1 John 3:1-3

(Message edited by nonotone on December 27, 2005)

cordell (cordell)

12-28-2005, 04:56 PM

Susanna: But when we find Rachel and Leah giving names to their sons, you claim that they are not in position of authority over their sons, since they are women. Had they been named by Jacob, it would have been a different thing, wouldn't it?

I said nothing of the sort. The fifth commandment, which is still in force according to Eph. 6:1ff, makes it clear that women DO have authority over their children in the home, what they don't have is authority over their husbands--which is what that curse thing was all about.

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-29-2005, 12:25 AM

So, what you are saying is that mom and dad rule equally over children?

If you say that the rule of men over women is because of the curse due to sin, you are saying that the death of Jesus wasn't powerful enough to deal with the woman's sin, only the man's sin. And in that case you are preaching a Gospel which isn't really a Gospel because it doesn't liberate every human being. Yet, the Bible says that all God's children have received a glorious liberty from God. If that glorious liberty is not freedom from sin and its consequences, then what is it?

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-29-2005, 06:36 AM

I think you have missed another point as well: Adam and Eve represented humanity as a whole, which is why humanity as a whole has felt the consequences of sin (until Jesus came and fixed the problem). If you are saying that Adam had authority over Eve because he named her, you are essence saying that all men have auhtority over all women. This is however not biblical. If we look at the Fall account, we see that all the consequences listed have been felt by all humans, not only married couples. The only part that pertains solely to marriage in the Creation/Fall account is the method of creation (Eve from Adam's rib), the rest is for all humanity.

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-29-2005, 06:42 PM

But even marriage is for humanity, so in a sense the whole thing is for humanity as a whole, and not just for married couples.

cordell (cordell)

12-30-2005, 03:29 PM

If you say that the rule of men over women is because of the curse due to sin, you are saying that the death of Jesus wasn't powerful enough to deal with the woman's sin, only the man's sin

Here proves the tedious nature of this discussion. I have not said that the rule of men over women in the home and the church is due to sin. Never said that.

The 'rule' which is benevolent, began at Creation, was evident by the man naming the woman. It continues after the fall, also in a benevolent manner, as evidenced by the man naming the woman yet again. Both times the man, though he rules, honors the woman and God by the name he gives:

The man said, "This is now bone of my bones, And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man."

This honors the woman and God. God promised a helper to the man, and Adam in praise of God names her.

Now the man called his wife's name Eve, because she was the mother of all {the living.}

This honors God for his promise of a Savior to come through the woman.

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-31-2005, 06:28 PM

And here lies the error of your view:

1. The rule of men began at Creation
2. The woman is a helper to the man

Your position is invalid when we look at Hebrew, which just proves that you have decided that this is what the Bible says, without it being there.

1. Gen 1:26-27: Mankind is created in God's image, both male and female
2. The woman is a help, just as God is "a very present help in time of need", not a servant.

You still haven't answered how a wife can have two heads and if women, byt the virtue of them naming their children had more authority over their children than the dads who did not name their children, which is what your view insists on (the one who names has all auhtority)

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-31-2005, 06:31 PM

And here lies the error of your view:

1. The rule of men began at Creation
2. The woman is a helper to the man

Your position is invalid when we look at Hebrew, which just proves that you have decided that this is what the Bible says, without it being there.

1. Gen 1:26-27: Mankind is created in God's image, both male and female
2. The woman is a help, just as God is "a very present help in time of need", not a servant.

You still haven't answered how a wife can have two heads and if women, byt the virtue of them naming their children had more authority over their children than the dads who did not name their children, which is what your view insists on (the one who names has all auhtority)

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

12-31-2005, 06:31 PM

And here lies the error of your view:

1. The rule of men began at Creation
2. The woman is a helper to the man

Your position is invalid when we look at Hebrew, which just proves that you have decided that this is what the Bible says, without it being there.

1. Gen 1:26-27: Mankind is created in God's image, both male and female
2. The woman is a help, just as God is "a very present help in time of need", not a servant.

You still haven't answered how a wife can have two heads and if women, byt the virtue of them naming their children had more authority over their children than the dads who did not name their children, which is what your view insists on (the one who names has all auhtority)

dinaweena (dinaweena)

01-02-2006, 01:55 AM

how greatly I am blessed to call you both my brothers and sisters in Christ and my friends. How shall I ever thank God enough for bringing me into this union with you and into this greater understanding of Light, Life and Love.

And so to you I speak blessings of deeper waters in which we all plunge and be more deeply immersed in the baptism of His Holy Spirit, eyes that grow keener and see farther into the realm of no sight, ears that catch every nuance of His Word spoken from every corner and every mouth, hearts that KNOW more than we have ever known. I speak to you the blessing of His Love in me and through me to you.

Life is good with you in my life.

kupski (kupski)

01-02-2006, 02:09 PM

cordell

Here’s a little argument.

I want to ask all the women out there in factnet world. Did any of you experience any pain while birthing children? And of that pain, how many of you found that it was a totally “pleasurable” feeling? Well it surely doesn’t seem that way for most people in the world. I don’t know if you have been anywhere near a birthing suite during a delivery, but the sound coming out of those rooms usually isn’t one of total enlightenment. I am sure maybe a couple of you might of experienced a less painful process, but most of you didn’t care too much for what you went through, ALTHOUGH you love your children.

Point two. Of all the Men and Women on this forum, (Excluding most of the “Higher Called ones” who have been taught they do not have to earn a days living, because they are just called to preach, even though the Apostle Paul never asked for a penny for himself and was actually earning a living from time to time as a tent maker) how many of you don’t have the “Curse “, that you do not have to work? Excluding of course if you are at home married and raising children ( and YES mom, that is work that you dont get paid for unfortunatly ). You will find most of us have to work. Please note, that both the pain of birthing and working to earn your days bread are mentioned as curses in Gen chapter 3. I seem to think that some believe that Jesus's death removed us from this?

I can’t wait for the response of this …………LOL

kupski (kupski)

01-02-2006, 02:12 PM

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

01-02-2006, 07:11 PM

Well Kupski, I have something for you:

1. Childbirth is painful only due to fear that causes tension which causes pain. There is no physiological cause for childbirth to be painful and I have met many women who didn't experience pain when having children, some only nominal pain, such as the pain associated with cramps during periods. The same becomes even more clear when the second child is born. The mom knows already what to expect and is able to relax more which reduces the amount of tension and thus also pain. The bad part about pain in childbirth is that if a woman begins to become tense, she will begin to experience pain. The pain will then make her afraid, which will make her even more tense, which will cause more pain, and on it goes until the pain becomes almost unbearable.
God didn't make childbirth painful, sin did by introducing fear.

2. Work is not a curse, it is the attitude which we have when we work that makes work a curse. It is God who supplies our bread (Give us daily our bread....). The earth was cursed and became a source of poverty instead of leisure for mankind. But even in the face of a famine and the fears and anxieties that come with it, God has promised to be with us.
See, there is the element of fear again.

God didn't curse us, he gave us only what we deserved in the form of the consequences due to sin.

cordell (cordell)

01-02-2006, 08:04 PM

And here lies the error of your view:

1. The rule of men began at Creation
2. The woman is a helper to the man

Your position is invalid when we look at Hebrew, which just proves that you have decided that this is what the Bible says, without it being there.

I did look at the Hebrew, in the entire context. You are out of step with over 90% of evangelical Christian Hebrew scholarship, let alone the historical church. Susanna sweetiecakes, just saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. Misquoting me as you did earlier just makes responding to you extremely tiresome.

1. Gen 1:26-27: Mankind is created in God's image, both male and female

I already made that point

2. The woman is a help, just as God is "a very present help in time of need", not a servant.

The bloody CONTEXT determines the meaning, which concept seems to be incapable of penetrating your thought processes or of disabling your mantra.

You still haven't answered how a wife can have two heads and if women, byt the virtue of them naming their children had more authority over their children than the dads who did not name their children, which is what your view insists on (the one who names has all auhtority)

I did answer this. Apparently either you did not read the answer or typically you just didn't like the answer.

Riddle me this, sugarpie--Why have you abandoned the church? and how are you not an antinomian?

dinaweena (dinaweena)

01-02-2006, 08:20 PM

Susanna- now your just lying! I've vaginally given birth to two children and experienced extreme PHYSICAL pain during both. No, I did not scream or cuss or anything as silly as that, but the PAIN was overwhelming to the point that I would have rather been DEAD than to feel myself split in two like that. I was not afraid to give birth, I was not afraid when I felt pain. The pain did not make me feel more tense, in fact, it was so overwhelming I almost lost conciousness....you can't be more relaxed than that.
You seem to set you self up as a know it all and I for one will not be listening to anything more you have to say. All of your opinions are pure conjecture based on your own phsycological input and what makes 'sense' to you....I think most of it is a load of crap. It's too bad....if you weren't so full of yourself you probably could actually get your point across. Equality in Christ.....it's a Truth no matter who wants to admit it or not. Pain in childbirth- it's a fact no matter if you tell yourself it is or not. Kudos to the women who say they felt nominal pain...I was far to concious and aware to think of what I expereinced as anything but pain. I'll say this though....it was totally worth every minute of pain to have what I've been given....every minute!

dancer (dancer)

01-02-2006, 08:20 PM

JF you sure are rude and arrogent.

How you could claim to study things based upon the original context when you say things the way you do is u unreal.

90% of evangelical christian hebrew schoolarship? Your pulling numbers out of the air, and frankly the idea you would know what evangelicl is laughable. Maybe fundie conservative off the wall far from historical church evangelical not evangelical.

One does not have to be these concepts that have lined up lately to be Evangelical. I know liberals who have a lower threshold for bible authority than most fundies who are on more target with orthodoxy that so called fundies.

I rather believe cover to cover than skip the verses I don't agree with. I bet you don't feel well when you read Eph 4, and Matthew 25:30-46.

I bet your read versed like Cor:13 looking to puke.

Rddle me this jimbo do you love these people you mock? I would imagine not by the way you speak.

dancer (dancer)

01-02-2006, 08:23 PM

karen (karen)

01-02-2006, 11:45 PM

I can’t help looking at pain in childbirth in a very practical way. Isn’t it because a large object is squeezing through a very small opening? And in particular for humans, babies have proportionately very large heads because of the size of the human brain. If Adam and Eve had not sinned, would anything be different? Was there an alternate design for childbirth before the Fall?

And what about other kinds of pain? Were the First Couple incapable of scraping their knees or falling out of a tree in the Garden? Were the angels on hand to lift them up so they didn’t stub a toe? When you think about it, pain is a very effective mechanism for letting the human body know when it has sustained an injury. Was the ability to feel and respond appropriately to pain added later? If A & E could not be injured, then I must assume they never bled. Then why does our blood have a mechanism for clotting? So did God go back and redesign the body to help humans survive the effects of the Fall? If not, then none of this makes sense. If so, then why fix some of the problems and not others, i.e., genetic mutation?

I have no problem believing in the Bible’s accounts of miracles, because I can understand how God could suspend the laws of nature at will. But I have a hard time reconciling these blatant inconsistencies in logic with respect to established natural law.

dinaweena (dinaweena)

01-03-2006, 12:16 AM

amen karen! I had other opinions regarding the pain in childbirth thing as well but thought that making my point would have turned into a crude and lewd conversation should I have said what I was really thinking. Good point, in a nutshell....

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

01-03-2006, 01:50 AM

Wow, Dina for someone who previously stated how "we should allow the Holy Spirit guide those who are in error" you come out pretty strong, don't you think? And make no mistake, I thought I was going to die as well while having Jonathan, so I am by no means saying that the pain is not real. I was saying that there isn't any physiological reason for the extreme pain, that is a medical fact and cannot be disputed even by you. It is also a fact that we all experience pain in a different way and we relate to it in a different way as well. Some can break a leg and walk a mile on it if necessary, some faint the second they see their own blood and cannot even stand to get a flushot because they are so afraid of it (my psychology teacher was one of those). So, perhaps you should do a bit more studying on the subject of pain, eh? Also, if you say that God punished the woman with pain in childbirth, you are saying that Jesus didn't save us from the consequences of sin, and that we are still being punished by Eve's disobedience. If that is the case, then what is the glorious liberty that we children of God experience, something the cursed earth is groaning and waiting for?
Dina, Dina, for someone who so much wants me to agree with everyone, and who doesn't want anyone to be rude, you sure aren't practicing what you are preaching.

"The bloody CONTEXT determines the meaning, which concept seems to be incapable of penetrating your thought processes or of disabling your mantra."

How about this? You are saying that of all the times this specific word is being used, only twice does it mean something else than its original meaning? Really? And how can you out of the context determine that ezer means a helper? What in the context says that the words should be used as "helper" instead of "help"?

And BTW, don't call me sweeticakes and sugarpie if you don't want me to call you a schauvinistic pig, ok?

dinaweena (dinaweena)

01-03-2006, 02:11 AM

First of all, I never said that pain was a 'curse'....please quit interjecting your words into my posts.
Secondly, I HAVE studied and also know that there ARE physiological responses to nerve stimuli that are definitely charactarized as extreme pain. THAT is medical fact. I also know that the body, in extreme cases, can go into shock and essentially trick the brain into not recognizing the pain thus allowing some people to not 'feel' the dire situation thier body is in so they can 'keep walking with a broken leg'.
You said,
"Childbirth is painful only due to fear that causes tension which causes pain"
I meremly stated that my own experience this was not true. I was not scared or afraid of giving birth, I was elated and excited and focused on relaxing and breathing so my body could do what it needed to do....AND I FELT EXTREME PAIN BOTH TIMES I GAVE BIRTH.
As far as being saved from the consequences of sin, I believe in a definite division beween soul/body, and spirit. The spirit is perfected and one with Christ due to the exchange of the old nature for the nature of God. However, we are still working out our faith with fear and trembling and this body with NEVER be perfected. I believe I can live without the bondage of sin because of Christ living His life in me, always knowing that my life is His so I don't 'fear' sin around every corner but am watchful....I've also seen many beautiful Christians (including myself) who have had to deal with bodily consequences for acting outside of Who they are in Christ.
Quit being so condescending and defensive. I'm not attacking you....I thought this was a "CONVERSATION" where we have an equal exchange of ideas. For someone so secure in thier liberty, you sure do get offended alot.

rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)

01-03-2006, 02:57 AM

Wow. So much contention.

As a person who lives with chronic and acute pain everyday, I have had to learn how to live with it. It is a true medical fact that tension does make the pain worse. It is also a fact that fear is not just an emotion: a body part, or a body as a whole responds out of fear to anticipated pain, thus again causing tension.

I was once a nurse. I have seen and assisted with many deliveries. Some women were tense and made the birthing process harder, some were tense and had few problems. i will say that those who practiced a meditative approach had less problems with the body pain. They were well prepared and the process was much less stressful for them.

Were Adam and Eve pre-fall fearful of pain, fearful of anything? I don't think so. They were not ashamed of their nakedness, there is no notation that they feared anything until they disobeyed God. Then they hid themselves, covered themselves and Adam lied. From that point, they were expelled from Eden...THEN came the pain, sxuffering, fear and problems.

Even if a person does not believe in this in a literal sense, it makes sense that to be out of fellowship with God makes the pain worse, the stress intense and the fear, bodily and emotionally harder to cope with: thus an increase in pain.

This is NOT to say that all pain is caused by being out of fellowship...I am saying that it is my personal experience that a peaceful meditative state does assist in pain management. I have seen it work in the delivery room, in the surgery recovery room and with cancer and dialysis patients etc.

I am sure Jeannie has seen this as well in her work. I am very glad it helps me*s*

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

01-03-2006, 04:07 AM

Well, Dina, I thought that you said that I was lying? I agree with you Roberta. During the 8 years I worked in the healthcare system, I saw how the mind can make things either better of worse. The so called psycho-somatic connection makes our approach the determining factor many times instead of the ailment itself.

If there truly is a physiological reason for pain, then Lamaze would not help one bit, would it? I have never seen a person who is up for a knee-surgery attend a Lamaze class, but I have seen a whole lot of would be moms. The point with the breathing technique is to get your mind of the pain, and thus make you more relaxed which will decrease the tension and reduce pain. Since Lamaze classes are very popular, it seems that it works.

About the conversation Dina, I thought I had the same right to express my opinions, but it seems to be that you have a hard time allowing me to do so.

dinaweena (dinaweena)

01-03-2006, 05:03 AM

Why do you not see that I've told you I appreciate your discussion?! I've told you that I somewhat agree with you....why can't you see that? I've NEVER once said you shouldn't express your opinion...are you blind?

Contentious rj? are you kidding me? How is it that when someone comes in with a hot button topic, spouting off like a know it all , they are the hero of FN but when someone asks for a bit more grace in how the subject is approached (so that people might want to listen), they are contentious? Wasn't it you on another thread who asked that someone be 'nicer'? I think I've been nice. I can see why so many people have no interest in posting anymore...they get tired of being railroaded. Fortunately for you, I don't give a crap if y'all like me or not. I'll go on telling you that I see Christ in you, in the conversation, and I love it. Not that it matters...no one will probably read this statement or respond to the fact that I've said it in almost every post recently.

Susanna, I've said it three or four times, I'll say it again. I don't agree with you. However, I do admire your studies and I see the Life that is in you working and being real for you. I applaud you for coming out with your unpopular views and expressing how you feel God has manifested things to you. I THINK YOU'RE NEAT. How is that a put down? It's not. Please quote where I have said you should not express your opinion....you keep saying that I've said that. Show me where. You can't because I wouldn't say that...to you or anyone. I will, however, be forthright in my own expression of what I know to be Truth and I wont stop expressing it just because you don't like it. I don't expect you to stop saying what you say because I disagree....I wouldn't want you to stop....no double standards here.

Yeah, when you said pain in childbirth isn't real, I called you a liar cause it was real for me and a great many other women who have given birth throughout the 6000 years or so of human history. You saying that it's not real doesn't make it not real. Lamaze isn't about 'faking yourself out' regarding pain. It's about focusing your attention away from the pain onto something else so your muscles can relax and your body can do what it was made to do. Yes, if you're sitting there thinking about how much it hurts, it can seem intensified....but it doesn't make it hurt more.....just like breathing and counting doesn't actually change the pain, it just deflects your attention from it.

dinaweena (dinaweena)

01-03-2006, 05:37 AM

Ok, so a good friend of mine has been reading here and has asked me not to interject any further on this topic....it's obvious to him that saying anything is just an excercise in futility. Since I respect my friend, I will SUBMIT to his request, as a brother and co-heir in Christ, and will acquiesce to his request. It seems it's time for wisdom to prevail. Besides, isn't this particular message board supposed to be about exposing a specific cult?

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

01-03-2006, 05:57 AM

"I did look at the Hebrew, in the entire context. You are out of step with over 90% of evangelical Christian Hebrew scholarship, let alone the historical church. "

Aren't you glad that Martin Luther ignored what 100 % of the scholars of his time deemed to be the truth? Perhaps he agreed with Stephen J. Tonsor: "The tyranny of the majority is no greater than when it demands comformity to a defective but popular moral sense." (Equality, decadence... p. 213.)

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

01-03-2006, 05:57 AM

rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)

01-03-2006, 03:22 PM

Dina

Your comments that Susanna is dismissive of other views, and does not listen to others with opposing views, is exactly what I have said about Jim Faucett and others. Jim's abrasive conduct here on FN, the name calling etc has been outrageous, and as you know I have had my problems with him. I love him, he knows it, and I have had my moments being on the recieving end of his barbs and his profound friendship.

Something I did learn from my tuswle with Jim, is that in order for him to be so adamant about his doctrinal stance, he had to , to some degree, understand the opposing views in order to counter them.

I see in Susanna's explanations that same thing. In order for her to be open to a new view, she must have a good understanding of the opposing views. Perhaps that is why I did not find her quite as dismissive as say perhaps Jim in with others.

Also it is very very difficult to propose an opposing view here on FN without rousing the ire of others that one is obliged to counter in order to continue to express oneself. I think that this is what is happening here.

I used the word contentious...not that you alone are contentious, per se, but the subject brings out emotions on both sides and it is a contentious situation. I have nothing against you or anyone personally. I was merely attempting to being some contexual calm to the conversation so it might continue.

My comments are of a general nature, and I do hope the personal attacks on both sides of the issue will cease...and I include myself in that.

Now that we are out of the narrow and restrictive cult, it is good to have people openly discussing alternative ideas, views and studies, I am sure you agree.

have qa great day...we are having an old fashioned Nor'easter here today!

cordell (cordell)

01-03-2006, 06:00 PM

Think meds.

cordell (cordell)

01-03-2006, 06:09 PM

Martin Luther was an Augustinian monk. He did not ignore true scholarship of the past if you have even read a page of Luther his appeal to historical scholarship is one of his strongest suits. What he did challenge was the current Roman Catholic scholarship--you may want to refer to The Bondage Of The Will in order to view this and count the number of times Luther refers to other scholars.

You on the other hand are imposing radical feminism, unbiblical egalitarianism, antinomianism from your dispensational background in GG and CC, an antagonistic view of the church, a pseudo-European superiority and your own minimal encounter with the Biblical languages upon Scripture.

Paul has said that women should not teach men.

You exemplify this in your attempts.

(Message edited by cordell on January 03, 2006)

cordell (cordell)

01-03-2006, 06:20 PM

A good example is your dealing with the word 'kephal' in 1 Cor. 11. I have shown that the word can mean both 'source' and 'head' and have given scriptural references showing that context determines meaning in each case.

Because you want to subvert the meaning, you say that 'kephal' must mean 'source' only--not because it has anything to do with Paul's context, but because it suits your feminism.

The Corinthians did not have a problem understanding Christ as their source as a church. They did have a problem with decorum and proper behavior which is what Paul addresses in many contexts throughout the letter.

Paul is not addressing a cultural problem with a cultural and temporary solution here, he is addressing a cultural problem with a divine perspective for all time and he appeals to the Creation order to correct the problem of improper decorum.

He also reminds the Corinthians that there are observers--angels (whether human or spiritual that is up for debate)--but they are observers. And in many other places (including chapter 14 and the pastoral epistles) Paul appeals for proper decorum because of observers and the propensity of Christians to cause others to blaspheme. That is why women do not teach men or have authority over them in the church.

This is why 'head' is authority and not 'source' alone in 1 Cor. 11, authority provides decorum, and to insist on 'source' alone does violence to the context and does not allow Scripture to interpret Scripture--as looking at other passages particularly in the Pauline epistles would do.

cordell (cordell)

01-03-2006, 06:25 PM

Dina, if anyone is the epitome of 'nice' on here it is you--and I say that with all due respect.
God bless and Happy New Year.

cordell (cordell)

01-03-2006, 06:33 PM

Do not let your adorning be external the braiding of hair, the wearing of gold, or the putting on of clothing but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening. Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.

Adorning, showing honor--this is stuff you can see--you know, like decorum.

Now watch the usual suspects get on and start harping about "braids" and other minutiae. The issue is modesty and how men and women behave in the house of God--order--even proper embellishment.

cordell (cordell)

01-03-2006, 06:38 PM

Please quote where I have said you should not express your opinion....you keep saying that I've said that.

You see Susanna, you don't just misquote me. You just misquote. You read and you miss things. You don't address what IS said and you address what you want to IMPOSE on others--kind of like you do with the Apostle Paul.

cordell (cordell)

01-03-2006, 06:40 PM

"abrasive conduct"...while I will certainly own mine that's pretty rich coming from my friend the Queen of Sandpaper.

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

01-03-2006, 07:45 PM

"You on the other hand are imposing radical feminism, unbiblical egalitarianism, antinomianism from your dispensational background in GG and CC, an antagonistic view of the church, a pseudo-European superiority and your own minimal encounter with the Biblical languages upon Scripture."
Wow, I expected you to use the word feminist earlier, what took you so long!? And how about this European superiority? I thought the Americans were known fo their superior, "we are the greatest nation in the WHOLE world, and we are the only true Christians"- attitude. That is what I have seen and heard all around the world (not to say that it applies to all since there is are a great deal really great people here too).
Now what about radical feminism? Do I say that women are superior to men? Have I said that women and men are the products of the sociery, without any distinct differences? Do I make equality equal to sameness? Do I hate men? I don't think so, and thus you have just proven my point, which is that the view you hold makes you antagonistic towards women and in an attempt to make me look ridiculous, you attach labels to my persona that do not belong there. Your attempt to belittle me is a sure sign of the unhealthiness of your doctrines, for it sure doesn't make you Christ-like for one bit. The problem is that you cannot accept that a woman argues a case in the same manner as you do. You cannot accept that a woman can actually beat you in knowledge (and I am only referring to some aspects, not all things since I don't know everything and I admit that in some aspects I am wrong, whether I am aware of it or not), since women in your mind should be "sweet and submissive", accomodating men and not be as lound and obnoxious as you are. I love discussions which are polite and kind to all, but if I in this discussion with you appear accomodating, you will not reveal what you truly think. The more you are provoced, the more you reveal who you truly are and what your doctrine is all about. This attempt of mine, I believe, is what made Dina so upset, and I feel bad that she had to feel that way, but it could not be helped. I wish that men like you were in the minority, but sometimes I find that in the church leadership, you are in the majority. This view of yours (and the ones who believe as you do) is based on flawed Bible interpretation but you won't admit it because it would lessen your status as a superior, which you cannot allow to happen. If you would admit that men and women are equal, you would also have to admit that a large part of your beliefs, which have shaped your life, are wrong and this would be a very difficult, perhaps even an impossible, thing to do since it requieres humility and being teachable.

I read about Martin Luther in school about 15 years ago, and I know that he was a learned man, even a professor in the University of Wittenberg. Yet, it was when he was studying the Bible ON HIS OWN, (Romans) that the Holy Spirit illuminated the Word to him and he found the true Gospel of faith. You told me that I, in my research, am going against 90 % of the evangelical scholars, which may be true or not (at least two evangelical commenataries I have hold the same view). My point was that Martin had to go against the contemporary view of salavtion in his pursuit for truth. I never said that he went against everything the chruch taught, since it is very obvious that he didn't. I am not opposed to all the church teaches today, only what it says about women and their role in the home, church and society. You say that I misquote you; well, you wilfully misunderstand me.

Sarah wasn't the only one who called Abraham Lord, since the word was used to denote respect:
Gen 23:5-6
And the sons of Heth answered Abraham, saying to him, "Hear us, my lord: You are a mighty prince among us; bury your dead in the choicest of our burial places. None of us will withhold from you his burial place, that you may bury your dead."

Gen 32:18
"then you shall say, 'They are your servant Jacob's. It is a present sent to my lord Esau; and behold, he also is behind us.' "

This is by the way in line with the NT teaching found in Eph 5:33: and let the wife see that she respects her husband. If you have noticed, 1 Pet is a letter to the Jewish believers. Abraham and Sarah were considered the most prominent people in Judaism, since they are considered to be the "parents" of Israel. The point with 1 pet is the issue of suffering and how to deal with it. Some Jewish women had become believers but since they were married to unbelieving Jewish men, they must have suffered perseuction in their own homes. The word "likewise" links the word for the wives to the word to the slaves who were suffering in the hands of their owners. Some women may have thought it unacceptable to be submissive to a harsh, unbelieving husband, but Peter uses Sarah as an illustration: Abraham had placed her life in danger by asking her to say she was his sister. Adultery was punished by death and if Sarah had become the kings wife, she would have been guilty of it. But God protected Sarah and what Peter is saying is that God will protect even these Jewish wives if they remain with their (harhs) husbands and show respect towads them (so the word of God would not be blasphemed). Interestingly you will find in the same passage a word for the husbands: to give honor to the wife. This is a clear contradiction to the advice given in Esther's days by the King: the wives had to give honor to the husband. The King of Kings does not advocate male rule, even though some may read it into this passage.

rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)

01-03-2006, 09:55 PM

"Queen of Sandpaper" *LOL*

And if I agreed with you like Dina does would I be "nice" too?

(In your world is "nice" a good thing?)

Jim, you really are a dear. Believe me or no...but I love you my friend, name calling notwithstanding!

isabella (isabella)

01-03-2006, 09:59 PM

cordell,

Please....Shut-Up!!!!

Thanks in advance,

Isabella

david_munson (david_munson)

01-04-2006, 12:45 AM

I don't know folks,it could go either way here.
Was calling her a "queen" a compliment?
Does she live in a real castle like a real queen?
I wonder how much gold she's hording?

I hate being a peasant.
There's no money in it.

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/biggrin.gif

Dave

}

cordell (cordell)

01-04-2006, 02:26 AM

Isabella, no thanks. Go find the other 3/5s of your missing brain tissue.

rj_fernalld (rj_fernalld)

01-04-2006, 02:34 AM

Think meds, Jim *LOL*...dang you're wound up tonight!

david_munson (david_munson)

01-04-2006, 02:49 AM

I once knew a guy that was so wound up
that when he unwound,he wound back up the other way.
Sorta perpetual motion if you will.

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

}

(Message edited by david munson on January 03, 2006)

susanna_krizo (susanna_krizo)

01-04-2006, 06:00 AM

Seems that the "man of God" is getting a bit touchy, eh?

dinaweena (dinaweena)

01-13-2006, 02:56 AM

Henry W. Longfellow

If we could read the secret history of our enemies, we should find in each person's life sorrow and suffering enough to disarm all hostility.

churchgrowth

04-21-2006, 11:52 AM

And these are the names of the sons of Israel who had come into Egypt; with Jacob had they come, each with his household: 2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah; 3 Issachar, Zebulun, and Benjamin; 4 Dan and Naphtali; Gad and Asher. 5 And all the souls that had come out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls; and Joseph was in Egypt. 6 And Joseph died, and all his brethren, and all that generation. 7 And the children of Israel were fruitful, and swarmed and multiplied, and became exceeding strong; and the land was full of them. 8 And there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 And he said to his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more numerous and stronger than we. 10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass that, if war occur, they take side with our enemies and fight against us, and go up out of the land. 11 And they set over them service-masters to oppress them with their burdens. And they built store-cities for Pharaoh, Pithom and Rameses. 12 But the more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and spread; and they were distressed because of the children of Israel. 13 And the Egyptians made the children of Israel serve with harshness; 14 and they embittered their life with hard labour in clay and bricks, and in all manner of labour in the field: all their labour with which they made them serve was with harshness. 15 And the king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives -- of whom the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other was Puah -- 16 and he said, When ye help the Hebrew women in bearing, and see [them] on the stool, if it be a son, then ye shall kill him, but if a daughter, then she shall live. 17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt had said to them, but saved the male children alive. 18 And the king of Egypt called the midwives and said to them, Why have ye done this, and saved the male children alive? 19 And the midwives said to Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian; for they are strong, and they have borne before the midwife comes to them. 20 And God dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and became very strong. 21 And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. 22 Then Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, but every daughter ye shall save alive