For my Dear Sisters in Christ

[rachelsedge]

But you neglect to raise the issue of the control, abuse and damage feminism has inflicted on men, family, and society overall, in western countries.

I think everyone is damaged by feminism, albeit some of the damage is indirect.

Keep in mind, also, the damage that the extreme opposite view of feminism brings: oppression of women, treating them as subordinates, as slaves, using them for whatever the man needs with no regard for the woman herself. Making Christian women like me afraid to marry, or at least extremely cautious, because of the way some men, as seen on this thread, interpret "submissiveness" and how they view women. But then I see things like this:

Because he loves me (Biblically), it's easy to trust and respect him.
Because I trust and respect him, it's easy to submit to him.
Anything he requires of me is for my own good, without fail.
And we always discuss things together, and he always seriously entertains my views.
If after that we (rarely) disagree, we do things his way, and I have found that to be a joy and a blessing.

And it gives me hope that there are men out there who know how to love a wife and what it means for a wife to submit, all in a Biblical, loving way.

I believe that there is a happy middle ground, not resulting in complete feminism or complete anti-feminism.

Well that point is well taken...but...women have to actually post (some have but for the percentage of women members on this site, it appears most either don't agree or don't care too).

I rarely visit the Bible forum. It just seems to me, most of the time, like a pack of wolves fighting over one thing, going at each other's throats and ripping well-intended threads to pieces. Not all threads or members are like this. But it seems to be more evident in the Bible forum, perhaps because there tends to be more extreme views present on both sides, as well as undying commitment to their side. This either makes people disinterested in participating or hesitant to post, not because they disagree, but because they don't want to get attacked.

 

[proverbs35]

Keep in mind, also, the damage that the extreme opposite view of feminism brings: oppression of women, treating them as subordinates, as slaves, using them for whatever the man needs with no regard for the woman herself. Making Christian women like me afraid to marry, or at least extremely cautious, because of the way some men, as seen on this thread, interpret "submissiveness" and how they view women. But then I see things like this:

And it gives me hope that there are men out there who know how to love a wife and what it means for a wife to submit, all in a Biblical, loving way.

I believe that there is a happy middle ground, not resulting in complete feminism or complete anti-feminism.

I rarely visit the Bible forum. It just seems to me, most of the time, like a pack of wolves fighting over one thing, going at each other's throats and ripping well-intended threads to pieces. Not all threads or members are like this. But it seems to be more evident in the Bible forum, perhaps because there tends to be more extreme views present on both sides, as well as undying commitment to their side. This either makes people disinterested in participating or hesitant to post, not because they disagree, but because they don't want to get attacked.

Not all of the men on this thread are extremist. I have read comments from some of the men here that would indicate some of them are interested in fairness, equity and the overall promotion of love. I recognize the presence of those men, and I appreciate their willingness to speak up and emphasize a husband's duty to love his wife.

 

[rachelsedge]

Not all of the men on this thread are extremist. I have read comments from some of the men here that would indicate some of them are interested in fairness, equity and the overall promotion of love. I recognize the presence of those men, and I appreciate their willingness to speak up and emphasize a husband's duty to love his wife.

Totally agree. I didn't mean to look over those in this thread who have voiced their opinions in that manner, so thanks for bringing that up as well!

 

[Angela53510]

Eve ate first knowing God's command through Adam. Adam had never lied before because there was no sin. That is different from your children theory. Eve also convinced Adam to eat the fruit. Who was the ringleader? Eve! Who was first to sin? Woman. It is funny you should mention God telling Adam and not Eve. Why? Was it because Adam was head of the family? Yes indeed.

Not really! God told Adam according to the Bible alone, because Eve had not yet been created!!

"[SUP]5 [/SUP]The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. [SUP]16 [/SUP]And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, [SUP]17 [/SUP]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.”[SUP]18 [/SUP]Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” [SUP]19 [/SUP]Now out of the ground the Lord God had 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. [SUP]20 [/SUP]The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him. [SUP]21 [/SUP]So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. [SUP]22 [/SUP]And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man" Gen. 2:15-22

Truly, if you read the above passage in the Bible, you will see that God COMMANDED THE MAN. The woman was NOT there. It says nothing about who told Eve. It could also have been God in an unrecorded conversation, but more likely Adam told Eve.

To me, the deliberate sin of Adam in disobeying is more important because it was a deliberate commission of sin. I know Eve sinned, but if she had only heard it from Adam, perhaps she did not understand the full consequences of it. But she was definitely deceived by Satan and sinned. (Ignorance of a direct command of God is no excuse!) I always wonder what would have happened if Adam had not eaten the fruit. I guess we will never know. (Please note he was NOT the head of the family when God told him, as there was NO FAMILY!! No marriage, either, for that matter!!)

I think it is important to note what Paul said about this issue, too.

"[SUP]12 [/SUP]Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all menbecause all sinned— [SUP]13 [/SUP]for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. [SUP]14 [/SUP]Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come." Romans 5:12-14

Sin came into the world through Adam. Because he was given the responsibility and the trust of not eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. He knew the consequences of eating the tree of the knowledge of good and evil - death!

"And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, [SUP]17 [/SUP]but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evilyou shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” Gen. 2:16-17

It would truly behoove some of the men to read their Bible a bit closer. And to realize that gospel, or good news, is that Christ's free gift brings justification and restoration.

"But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man's trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. [SUP]16 [/SUP]And the free gift is not like the result of that one man's sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. [SUP]17 [/SUP]For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ." Romans 5:15-17

"Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.For as by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous. [SUP]20 [/SUP]Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, [SUP]21 [/SUP]so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 5:18-21

Roles in the Bible come AFTER the FALL in the Bible. Trying to justify roles today, on the basis of what happened AFTER the fall, is heresy, because in the Garden of Eden, man and woman were made in the image of God. There is nothing about roles, about woman submitting or curses. That came after the Fall.

Also, that word MAN in Gen. 1:26, 28 is not the word "ish" used for the male gender. It is "adam", and it means humanity, even though Eve was not yet created. It later became Adam's proper name. In other words, the write of Genesis is communicating to us that a HUMAN BEING was created, who it is later revealed was a man.

I suggest reading the Bible and not listening to the Words of men who have perpetuated these lies for too long!

 

[Angela53510]

Definition of haughty - scornfully and condescendingly proud.

If I said "I have never been married to a Christian woman so have NEVER suffered the wounds from a smart mouth and nagging" such a statement would be both scornful of Christian wives, and condescendingly proud - haughty. Your statement was haughty, and this is what I stated - a fact, not a personal attack.

The husband, or the man? The text says the man.

The word for man in Greek is άνδρπος (andropos) or ανερ (aner). It is the same word for man and for husband. Just like the word for wife is the same as the word for woman. ( γυναῖκες) This also applies to Hebrew. There are not separate words for the spouse and the gender. Look it up on-line if you don't believe me.

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. [SUP]23 [/SUP]For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. [SUP]24 [/SUP]Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands." Eph. 5:22 ESV

ESV is complementarian- the do believe in roles. But even this translation rightly translates the word as husband!

And just so you know, I have been married to my husband for 32 years. He told me I am very submissive! He is also supposed to submit to me, according to Eph. 5:21 but he is answerable to God for that one. Actually, he has learned to listen and consider my thoughts and care for me very nicely since a bad time 8 years ago, when we separated. The marriage counselor diagnosed him with major depression, with confirmation by a psychiatrist. He is so much better of a husband and godly man since he got control of his depression.

 

[Yahshua]

I rarely visit the Bible forum. It just seems to me, most of the time, like a pack of wolves fighting over one thing, going at each other's throats and ripping well-intended threads to pieces. Not all threads or members are like this. But it seems to be more evident in the Bible forum, perhaps because there tends to be more extreme views present on both sides, as well as undying commitment to their side. This either makes people disinterested in participating or hesitant to post, not because they disagree, but because they don't want to get attacked.

YOU ARE SO ABSOLUTELY WRONG, Rachel!!!! (Just kidding lol). I can testify to that. I find I frequent the bible forum more than other forums because "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another" (Proverbs 27:17); keeping my sword & shield ready for any weapon the enemy has formed against me in this world.

 

[haz]

Keep in mind, also, the damage that the extreme opposite view of feminism brings: oppression of women, treating them as subordinates, as slaves, using them for whatever the man needs with no regard for the woman herself. Making Christian women like me afraid to marry, or at least extremely cautious, because of the way some men, as seen on this thread, interpret "submissiveness" and how they view women.

Hi rachelsedge,

Both sides have extreme examples.
It is unfortunate that you witnessed the extremes from the men's side.

But under the current dominant tyranny of feminism in western societies I would describe western societies as being the opposite extreme to the male dominated extremes we see in countries like Pakistan.

As several women from countries similar to Pakistan have said to me, in countries like Australia it's better for the women and worse for the men, but in their former country it's better for the men and worse for the women.

Twofeet quotes examples of abuse of women from countries similar to Pakistan and then merges that into her critique of men in western countries. Her posts are an unbalanced portrayal considering the dominant tyranny of feminism in the societies she criticizes.

I can understand and also relate to your hesitation to ever marry again after what you have witnessed. There are many men like myself who feel the same as you after what they have experienced under the current dominant tyranny of feminism. I know men who even advise their sons not to marry, so that they hopefully will not have to experience the same abuse from a wife as they did.

 

[Misty77]

Hi rachelsedge,

Both sides have extreme examples.
It is unfortunate that you witnessed the extremes from the men's side.

But under the current dominant tyranny of feminism in western societies I would describe western societies as being the opposite extreme to the male dominated extremes we see in countries like Pakistan.

As several women from countries similar to Pakistan have said to me, in countries like Australia it's better for the women and worse for the men, but in their former country it's better for the men and worse for the women.

Twofeet quotes examples of abuse of women from countries similar to Pakistan and then merges that into her critique of men in western countries. Her posts are an unbalanced portrayal considering the dominant tyranny of feminism in the societies she criticizes.

I can understand and also relate to your hesitation to ever marry again after what you have witnessed. There are many men like myself who feel the same as you after what they have experienced under the current dominant tyranny of feminism. I know men who even advise their sons not to marry, so that they hopefully will not have to experience the same abuse from a wife as they did.

When less than 3% of rapists in America even see the inside of a jail cell, and the vast majority of their victims are women, I hardly call ours a tyranny of feminism. Women are still the #1 victims of domestic abuse, and females of all ages make up 90% of all human-trafficking victims. The #1 business is the sex trade of all levels with men being the greatest portion of the clients. Perhaps you are thinking of a particular segment of our society, but women are the most common victims of the crimes least likely to be brought to justice.

Christians did not lead the charge to give women equal treatment under the law so the movement was greatly secular. This has led to a lot of unintended consequence, but be cautious about naming those. There are many trends that are taking a turn for the worse, but correlation does not imply causation. Meaning, trends may seem to show similar movement, but that fat alone doesn't prove which one caused the other.

 

[rachelsedge]

I can understand and also relate to your hesitation to ever marry again after what you have witnessed.

Just to clarify, I have never been married. It makes me worry to ever be married in general, due to attitudes I've seen here on this forum as well as in real life.

You bring up good points, that comparing two different places (America and Pakistan, for example) may not be balanced per se, because they are two separate operating systems. I also agree with Misty77 in her post above. I think it depends on what you're comparing. If it's "Who wears the pants", it's going to be different in different places. If it's who has the most violence, both sexual and physical, committed against them, it tends to be women in most places.

 

[GreenNnice]

Well, said twofeeted.

----------------

Exactly. Christ is over man in the household. And, the man is over the woman in the household.

But the man is to be over the woman with the 'fear of God' to treat her right.

She is to submit to her husband no matter what.

Even if her husband is controlling ? Yes.

The ONLY thing, I think, that a wife is to see the Lord leading her to not submit is ANY form of abuse.

Understanding the word 'controlling' is important to understand too. It can be cop-out for the woman, who THINKS the man is being abusive when he's just being controlling. In BOTH cases, the Lord will talk to the man who is a Christian. You can REMIND him too of Scripture and how he may be in control of the woman but he is to realize God IS in control of him and he better realize that his treatment of his wife better be with the FEAR OF GOD in him in HOW he treats her



Does Scripture say all this, green? Yes.

 

[Yahshua]

When less than 3% of rapists in America even see the inside of a jail cell, and the vast majority of their victims are women, I hardly call ours a tyranny of feminism. Women are still the #1 victims of domestic abuse, and females of all ages make up 90% of all human-trafficking victims. The #1 business is the sex trade of all levels with men being the greatest portion of the clients. Perhaps you are thinking of a particular segment of our society, but women are the most common victims of the crimes least likely to be brought to justice.

Christians did not lead the charge to give women equal treatment under the law so the movement was greatly secular. This has led to a lot of unintended consequence, but be cautious about naming those. There are many trends that are taking a turn for the worse, but correlation does not imply causation. Meaning, trends may seem to show similar movement, but that fat alone doesn't prove which one caused the other.

Misty, you have to take into consideration that most domestic violence crimes committed by women against men go unreported by men for the same reason why rape crimes used to go unreported...shame. Men for the most part don't report when they are attacked by their woman because of how weak they'll appear. Additionally, it's not looked at as a crime to the general public (not when hitting men is a staple in TV, movies and commercials). So that domestic violence figure people believe to be true is very skewed, sadly.

I'm sure we've all see in public, as passersby, women in anger haul off and hit their man as hard as possible. That's domestic violence in full view...but when people ignore it (thinking the man must have had it coming), that's feminism. But let the roles be reversed and the man even *threatens* to hit the woman in public, that man would most likely be mobbed because that man has absolutely done something wrong.

[video=youtube;CRCS6GGhIRc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRCS6GGhIRc[/video]

A woman can even claim both emotional abuse and rape just for being upset at her man...which is a dishonor to women (like you) who have honestly been victims of these heinous crimes. But feminism allows women to abuse these claims because men are already assumed to be guilty, perverted, wretches until proven innocent, and everyone knows it. This is the iniquity of inequity.

The difference between the violence you've noted and feminism is rape & human-trafficking are (thankfully) unlawful...yet feminism is insidiously lawful and part of the fabric of today's culture, so very few recognize its influence or acknowledge any victims of it. Even the adult industry - while it was seeded by men's exploitation of women - was nurtured by two bedrocks of feminism: sexual liberation (to convince women they had power over men with their bodies) & shaming the lifestyle of a homemaker (vs. having a monetary career of her own).

My point is these problems are not caused by men being in control [and I think that was Haz's point and why he brought up feminism to balance things out]...these problems are caused by *people* (both male & female) who do not have the light of Christ in them. So unfortunately, you're right...Christians didn't lead the charge early on with issues like these concerning the law..............but then again...wouldn't focusing on the laws one should follow in society (as governed by God) have been considered "legalistic"? (I'm not turning this into a legalism battle, just giving some food for thought).

 

[Misty77]

Misty, you have to take into consideration that most domestic violence crimes committed by women against men go unreported by men for the same reason why rape crimes used to go unreported...shame. Men for the most part don't report when they are attacked by their woman because of how weak they'll appear. Additionally, it's not looked at as a crime to the general public (not when hitting men is a staple in TV, movies and commercials). So that domestic violence figure people believe to be true is very skewed, sadly.

First of all, no one should be abused, regardless of gender. I said it was mostly, not entirely, women. Yes, there are the parasites who make false statements, but they are by far the minority. MOST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ABUSE GOES UNREPORTED regardless of the gender of the victim. It is said that rape is the one crime where the victim is put on trial. I can personally vouch for that.

Even the adult industry - while it was seeded by men's exploitation of women - was nurtured by two bedrocks of feminism: sexual liberation (to convince women they had power over men with their bodies) & shaming the lifestyle of a homemaker (vs. having a monetary career of her own).

Most, not all, women are driven to the sex industry out of desperation because that is what the male gender as a whole are most willing to pay for (it IS the top grossing industry). Just google ministries to sex workers to see the behind the scene stories.

Study your history, dude. The concept of the stay-at-home mom is relatively new. Only the upper classes have been able to afford such luxury, though many of those women ran their own businesses or charities. The work-from-home mom is most represented throughout the ages—including the unnamed Virtuous Woman, Priscilla, and Lydia. In agrarian societies, women worked the land along side the men. It's true that they usually stayed closer to the house, but that is when there was butter to churn, clothes to sew or handwash, grain to grind, and water to haul. I'm from a long line of farmers. Trust me, during harvest, no one is exempt.

My point is these problems are not caused by men being in control [and I think that was Haz's point and why he brought up feminism to balance things out]...these problems are caused by *people* (both male & female) who do not have the light of Christ in them. So unfortunately, you're right...Christians didn't lead the charge early on with issues like these concerning the law..............but then again...wouldn't focusing on the laws one should follow in society (as governed by God) have been considered "legalistic"? (I'm not turning this into a legalism battle, just giving some food for thought).

You are confusing the terms. Legalism is holding people to standards that are not in the Bible, even if they are based on Biblical principle. Standing up for the rights of those who have no voice, legal or otherwise, is duty of believers (Proverbs 31:8). Many Christians led the charge against slavery, but few would stand up for women. In fact, there was a time when the women's movement resented the civil rights movement because their husbands were more willing to give rights to men they hated than to the women they professed to love.

Jesus treated women with much more respect than their society gave them, even though it was more than many of the cultures around them. But frankly, Christian men for centuries failed to make sure their sisters in Christ were treated fairly by the governments they set up. And when Christians fail to do the right thing, they shouldn't be surprised when someone else comes along with a different solution.

MY POINT is that the my abuser was a preacher. The man who raped me had a Jesus Tshirt on and cross tattoo. My friends have been told BY THEIR PASTORS to submit to abuse and just pray. ALL OF THESE MEN BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE ORDAINS THE PAIN THEY ARE CAUSING WOMEN. You have no idea how many wives I have held as they wept over what their "godly" husbands have done to them. How many of them have been manipulated, raped, or belittled by the men who vowed to cherish them. They reach out in desparation for help, but are only seen as "the wife" instead of as a woman. Because so many Christian men are focused on the feminists in society, they have over-corrected to the point of marginalizing their sisters in Christ.

 

[p_rehbein]

Yahshua said:

My point is these problems are not caused by men being in control [and I think that was Haz's point and why he brought up feminism to balance things out]...these problems are caused by *people* (both male & female) who do not have the light of Christ in them. So unfortunately, you're right...Christians didn't lead the charge early on with issues like these concerning the law..............but then again...wouldn't focusing on the laws one should follow in society (as governed by God) have been considered "legalistic"? (I'm not turning this into a legalism battle, just giving some food for thought).

I surely agree that these people (male or female) do not have the light of Christ within them......and that many abuse situations go unreported (both male and female).......

With regards to Christians/the Church "leading the charge," in my opinion, we certainly should have, and should today. For me it does not reflect "legalism/legalist Theology," rather it reflects the Love of God......

No Christian should turn away and pretend to not see a situation where someone is being physically or mentally abused.....be they man, woman, or child. My goodness, if it isn't our duty to STAND UP FOR THESE...........what is the "Love thy neighbor" commandment all about?

God bless brother.......

 

[Isdaniel]

What about women who beat their Husbands should he fight back or tell the police ?

 

[proverbs35]

What about women who beat their Husbands should he fight back or tell the police ?

She should be reported to the police. Domestic violence is very serious, and it requires accountability regardless of gender.

 

[rachelsedge]

YOU ARE SO ABSOLUTELY WRONG, Rachel!!!! (Just kidding lol). I can testify to that. I find I frequent the bible forum more than other forums because "As iron sharpens iron, so one person sharpens another" (Proverbs 27:17); keeping my sword & shield ready for any weapon the enemy has formed against me in this world.

It's great for iron to sharpen iron, but it seems that sometimes in threads in the Bible forums, the iron in the sword is intended to destroy others, not sharpen others.

 

[proverbs35]

[video=youtube;CRCS6GGhIRc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRCS6GGhIRc[/video]

Totally off topic, but I like this show because it's so enlightening. I hadn't seen this video, so I'm glad you brought it up.

 

[Yahshua]

First of all, no one should be abused, regardless of gender. I said it was mostly, not entirely, women. Yes, there are the parasites who make false statements, but they are by far the minority. MOST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND ABUSE GOES UNREPORTED regardless of the gender of the victim. It is said that rape is the one crime where the victim is put on trial. I can personally vouch for that.

Apologies. When I read "the vast majority" and "#1 victims of domestic violence", I took it for what it means...but this is a sensitive subject for you (to say the least) so I'll understand if you meant otherwise.

Most, not all, women are driven to the sex industry out of desperation because that is what the male gender as a whole are most willing to pay for (it IS the top grossing industry). Just google ministries to sex workers to see the behind the scene stories.

Study your history, dude. The concept of the stay-at-home mom is relatively new. Only the upper classes have been able to afford such luxury, though many of those women ran their own businesses or charities. The work-from-home mom is most represented throughout the ages—including the unnamed Virtuous Woman, Priscilla, and Lydia. In agrarian societies, women worked the land along side the men. It's true that they usually stayed closer to the house, but that is when there was butter to churn, clothes to sew or handwash, grain to grind, and water to haul. I'm from a long line of farmers. Trust me, during harvest, no one is exempt.

Yeah scripture proves that women worked in the field (Ruth), but my point was that the adult industry (one of the biggest elements in the sex trade industry that you say is because of men) was nurtured by a woman led movement; that both genders are at fault.

You are confusing the terms. Legalism is holding people to standards that are not in the Bible, even if they are based on Biblical principle. Standing up for the rights of those who have no voice, legal or otherwise, is duty of believers (Proverbs 31:8). Many Christians led the charge against slavery, but few would stand up for women. In fact, there was a time when the women's movement resented the civil rights movement because their husbands were more willing to give rights to men they hated than to the women they professed to love.

Legalism, in Christian theology, is a usually pejorative term referring to an over-emphasis on discipline of conduct, or legal ideas, usually implying an allegation of misguided rigour, pride, superficiality, the neglect of mercy, and ignorance of the grace of God or emphasizing the letter of law at the expense of the spirit. Legalism is alleged against any view that obedience to law, not faith in God's grace, is the pre-eminent principle of redemption.


...So it's standards that are not only in the bible but *literally written verbatim*...that's the whole point of the contention between the two factions (i.e. "OT" vs "NT"). But no, Misty, the duty of the believer is to spread the Gospel of the Kingdom in our efforts of feeding the sick, clothing the naked, taking care of widows, & orphans, taking care of abused & battered women, etc...that's what Christ said to do; to speak of another society all can escape to where all tears will be dried, all pain will be gone, and all things will be made new. This current society is doomed for destruction. Slaves were not freed because of acts of men but because of the will of God; for the sake of the elect (those of us also part of the fold).

Jesus treated women with much more respect than their society gave them, even though it was more than many of the cultures around them. But frankly, Christian men for centuries failed to make sure their sisters in Christ were treated fairly by the governments they set up. And when Christians fail to do the right thing, they shouldn't be surprised when someone else comes along with a different solution.

MY POINT is that the my abuser was a preacher. The man who raped me had a Jesus Tshirt on and cross tattoo. My friends have been told BY THEIR PASTORS to submit to abuse and just pray. ALL OF THESE MEN BELIEVE THAT THE BIBLE ORDAINS THE PAIN THEY ARE CAUSING WOMEN. You have no idea how many wives I have held as they wept over what their "godly" husbands have done to them. How many of them have been manipulated, raped, or belittled by the men who vowed to cherish them. They reach out in desparation for help, but are only seen as "the wife" instead of as a woman. Because so many Christian men are focused on the feminists in society, they have over-corrected to the point of marginalizing their sisters in Christ.

You will know them by their fruits. Can you really call someone who doesn't act like Christ a true Christian? You have to ask yourself "who were they really?"

1 John 2:19

They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

The fact that Christ treated women better than societies and cultures of this world is because he was not of this world or its kingdoms, just like his true apostles are not of this world; not part of its nations or its governments or its societies or peoples.

John 17:16

They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

You will *know* them by their fruit, sister.

ALL of the pharisees (with exception for a couple) swore up and down that they were the ministers of the almighty God...but Christ proved day after day that they were nothing but charlatans, hypocrites, den of vipers, seed of the devil. It ABSOLUTELY does not matter what they called themselves, Misty. It absolutely makes no difference what those people who victimized you and other women called themselves, they were not my kin; they were not followers of the Word of God...but charlatans, hypocrites, den of vipers, seed of the devil. (Ravenous) Wolves in sheep's clothing (wool suits).

No one minimizes your suffering...God forbid. God forbid! But the crimes against you do not justify the crimes of another group through their "solution". (not saying whether you do or do not condone of feminism...I'm just saying).

Romans 12:9

Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "VENGEANCE IS MINE; *I* will repay," says the Lord.

We talk about submission on this thread and truly (as someone already said) submission to God's commands must be first.

Matthew 5:38

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[a] and hate your enemy.’

44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.

46 If you love those who (only) love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?

47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

This is how we solve the problem: "'not by strength...nor by might...but by my spirit', says the lord". Zechariah 4:6.

Take heart Misty...all things will be made new.

 

[my_adonai_]

I guess the word "love" is hard to understand for some my_adonai_...but I think "love is not SELF seeking" is a great start.

Example 1: Wife comes home from work full of excitement as the bosses have decided to pay for a Christmas works party. Husband pulls rank and says " Im sorry honey but your not going. It is not godly for you to be out partying with non-christians where drinking is involved and men will be trying to hit on you.

Example 2: Wife comes home from work full of excitement as the bosses have decided to pay for a Christmas works party. Husband cant wait to buy his wife an outfit so she can look beautiful. He then spends time in prayer with her, praying that God will protect her and give her chances to be salt, be light, be kingdom to people fully confident in HER walk with God that she is able to stand IN the world but not be of it.

One speaks of control, insecurities and bondage the other speaks of love, freedom and the correct way to spiritually protect a woman.

Love the example sis.

I see that in my dad actually, the control, insecurity and bondage, a simple word against him could be a foundation for future bashing and attacking, where HIS thoughts are law and mine are just childish.

Men also forget the Friendship part of their relationship with their wives, and thats where we see women keeping things from his husband. and doing things in secret instead of opening up. why? they do not want to bashed and attacked, no body does.

I pray i become a good man, being HEAD through Love, compassion, self control and the Fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Its like what you said, a man ought to give liberty to the woman because he trusts her(having known her heart, and her relationship with GOD) and openly telling her, but leaving the decision back to her..

Thank you Lord for my sister Twofeet.

I Do know that there are marriages in CC that are not really enjoyable, or are not experience the Fullness of GOD in it through one the parties, man or woman.
I pray that the Lord may heal these marriages, and that the eyes of the individuals may not look anywhere else. But GOD..!!..

 

[Kerry]

A woman gives it up because she wants too. The law states that a woman in the field is taken and no hears here scream. Basically she should not have been in the field alone. But , if in the city and her scream is heard the man is to be stoned. So ladies don't go to the club half dressed around drunk men. It's just stupid.