Woman should not teach or assume authority over men (applies to secular????)

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
P

phil112

Guest
.............. Until feminism, men could legally beat their wives. ............
Ummm...want to prove that please?

Some of you people are just greatly confused. A Godly woman is an asset to her husband, and a Godly man realizes that. The bible is pro women, not anti-women. It's pretty disgusting to hear some accuse God of being against women. Nothing could be further from the truth. N.O.W. and hardline feminists have hurt womens cause. You need to stop acting like it was a man that is christian that tried to hold women back. Wanting women AND MEN to obey God and fulfill the roles assigned by God is what every christian wants.

If a man tried to hold you back by quoting scripture, he isn't a christian, so why blame the bible for something it doesn't do?
tucksma is trying to get that point across, so why are beating heck out of him for endorsing biblical conduct?
 
T

tucksma

Guest
I'd like to be the first American to apologize to you that we had the audacity to outlaw slavery in 1863 instead of following the Bible.


The Emancipation Proclamation
January 1, 1863

A Proclamation.

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

By
the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

I'm not saying these acts were not good things! I'm saying that is it really a christian's duty to change a nation's law, or to heal people spiritually? I'm not saying these law changes were bad, rather than they help people phyiscally not spiritually. That's not as important. Changing laws takes A TON of time (as we see with slavery and women rights). It's better for a christian to bring spiritual life to tons rather than spend their time changing a law.
 
T

tucksma

Guest
Wow. Your conscience is way too calloused to even try to debate. Go read some history and some survivor stories, then maybe we can talk.
What did they survive though? They survived physical pain. That's great and all, but what did they gain spiritually? Nothing. So in the end (when they do die) what will be changed? Nothing. This is why it is better, and way more important, to preach and rather than change laws.

Sense changing a law can require A TON of time, and the yield of the change is nothing spiritual, then why do it if there is no spiritual fruit?
 
L

LT

Guest
This sounds more like fighting fire with fire, rather than seeking Truth.

Men failed back in the early 1900's which caused feminism.
The rise of feminism made men lazy, because women now shared in their responsibility.
Laziness turns to drunkenness.
Drunkenness turns to violence.
The 40's-70 were full of abusive drunk husbands.
Now men have reverse the trend and become weak, undesirable fools.
Homosexuality has reigned since the role reversal of the 70s.
Why? Because women aren't actually attracted to weak men, and men aren't actually attracted to controlling women.

When the strongest personalities around are women, and the most submissive personalities around are men, people get sexually confused.



GOD HAS WISDOM.
He told us how it is supposed to work, and men abused it, and women resented the abuse.
Now, rather than fixing it, people just want retribution for the abuses.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
T

tucksma

Guest
Not saying Christians should have suppported slavery, or the beating of wives. In fact they shouldn't have had slaves or beat wives (obviously), but to change the law would require large amounts of time which in the end bears no spiritual fruit.

If changing these laws was what we were supposed to do then why didn't Christ do that? Everything he did was for spiritual health of others. So shouldn't we do the same?
 
T

tucksma

Guest
This sounds more like fighting fire with fire, rather than seeking Truth.

Men failed back in the early 1900's which caused feminism.
The rise of feminism made men lazy, because women now shared in their responsibility.
Laziness turns to drunkenness.
Drunkenness turns to violence.
The 40's-70 were full of abusive drunk husbands.
Now men have reverse the trend and become weak, undesirable fools.
Homosexuality has reigned since the role reversal of the 70s.
Why? Because women aren't actually attracted to weak men, and men aren't actually attracted to controlling women.

When the strongest personalities around are women, and the most submissive personalities around are men, people get sexually confused.
We are now trying to determine the truth. Ergo not fire fighting fire.
 
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
Not saying Christians should have suppported slavery, or the beating of wives. In fact they shouldn't have had slaves or beat wives (obviously), but to change the law would require large amounts of time which in the end bears no spiritual fruit.

If changing these laws was what we were supposed to do then why didn't Christ do that? Everything he did was for spiritual health of others. So shouldn't we do the same?
Who decided that Christians shouldn't have slaves?

Titus 2:9 Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative,
 

Misty77

Senior Member
Aug 30, 2013
1,746
45
0
The logic train has left the station. I bid this thread "farewell."
 
T

tucksma

Guest
Let me rephrase, Christians shouldn't have treated slaves as people typically did. A servent is not unbiblical, but beating said slave is. That is why I'm saying they shouldn't have supported slaves, because of how they were treated. If slaves were treated with respect, it'd be different. Also if slavery wasn't based on race, didn't make the slave not a person, but rather treated the slave pretty much as a worker now a days except payment was food, shelter, water, clothing not money, then it would have been fine. There were countless issues with American slavery which is why a Christian shouldn't have had any. I don't know how they were in other nations.
 
B

biscuit

Guest
I hear a lot about men giving account for sins their wives and children committed. Please provide scriptural evidence for that. We are each going to give account to God for how we each behaved. We are not responsible for others, only for the actions that we did or did not take regarding them.

Divorce is prevalent because people in general are selfish. Neither gender is to blame. Yes, there are women who want it all. There are also men who cheat, women who cheat, men who want a newer model, women who want a richer man, etc. The Bible does not blame societal ills on one gender. Placing disproportionate blame on one people group is prejudiced and wrong. In this case, it is masculism. Extreme masculism is just as wrong as extreme feminism.
Please take a small branch and break it. How many pieces do you have? I guess the answer is two. What was one branch is now two separate branches. What is the analogy? When two are join in matrimony, they are one flesh. And when broken they are no long united. When a marriage is dissolved, both have failed because the branch is broken, and often in court the man is blamed for not keeping his family together. That was the past ... and now it is considered a "no fault" dilemma in court and assets and children are decided by the court. Even though the court is to distribute the wealth in a "no fault manner, " it is still the man who is really still receiving the blame, losing the children and most of the assets. I like the old system better when the judge heard both sides and made the award based on witnesses and facts. I agree with you that both parties are to blame because it takes two to tango. What is the basic for my argument? We can live our marriage according to Scriptures or abide by secular rules & laws which are bounded by politics. IMHO, when a relationship or marriage fails, both are to blame and should stop pointing fingers. You can be a perfect Christian woman and living your marriage according to the Scripture, and for some reason your marriage fail because you found a lot of dirty laundry in his basket and didn't see it all before marrying him. Nevertheless, you are part of that failed equation because you married a loser. We just learn from our mistakes and make the necessary adjustments. A failed relationship is just that, a failed relationship ... and both failed regardless the degree of fault.
 
D

didymos

Guest
Who decided that Christians shouldn't have slaves?

Titus 2:9 Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative,
I can have slaves? cool... :rolleyes:
 
T

tucksma

Guest
I can have slaves? cool... :rolleyes:
Slavery isn't unbiblical if done correctly, but it wasn't at all in almost every nations. I can do into detail if someone says that slavery was not biblical, but it'd be hard to do because slaves were used throughout the bible.
 
T

tucksma

Guest
Granted this has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, so someone can PM me about that if they like.
 
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
Let me rephrase, Christians shouldn't have treated slaves as people typically did. A servent is not unbiblical, but beating said slave is. That is why I'm saying they shouldn't have supported slaves, because of how they were treated. If slaves were treated with respect, it'd be different. Also if slavery wasn't based on race, didn't make the slave not a person, but rather treated the slave pretty much as a worker now a days except payment was food, shelter, water, clothing not money, then it would have been fine. There were countless issues with American slavery which is why a Christian shouldn't have had any. I don't know how they were in other nations.
This is the the Bible Discussion Forum, by the way, not the Tucksma's Personal Opinion Forum.

Titus 2:9 Slaves are to be submissive to their own masters in everything; they are to be well-pleasing, not argumentative,
 
B

biscuit

Guest
Let me rephrase, Christians shouldn't have treated slaves as people typically did. A servent is not unbiblical, but beating said slave is. That is why I'm saying they shouldn't have supported slaves, because of how they were treated. If slaves were treated with respect, it'd be different. Also if slavery wasn't based on race, didn't make the slave not a person, but rather treated the slave pretty much as a worker now a days except payment was food, shelter, water, clothing not money, then it would have been fine. There were countless issues with American slavery which is why a Christian shouldn't have had any. I don't know how they were in other nations.
Excellent Post!! I think it was obvious slavery was going to be brutal in America when you have politicians passing laws that delared Black slaves to be 3/5 human. Slave were to be treated with RESPECT and not like animals. I believe Portugal was the only colonial nation that came close to treating slaves as one of its people. What is so ironic about colonial slavery is that everyone of those countries suffered brutal loss of live from wars. In the United States case, it suffered tremendous loss of lives during the Civil War, WWI & WWII. God works mysterious ways in combating evil. Again, I believe Portugal didn't suffer the consequences of slavery as her European counterparts. Believe it or not, many slave owners & slaves were living basically as husbands & wives, with children. Later Portugal banned slavery and most of the master/slave families GOT MARRIED. I kid you not!!

"Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven." (Colossians 4:1)
 
G

GreenNnice

Guest
Really, all this talk just proves my point. Women are used by God today. Sure, it's not how you see it biblically. Fine!

Like I told, Philly, it's silly to play God.

People make mistakes all the time, 100s of women pastors quite possibly prove that true, depending on if you believe that 1 Tim. 2:12, and, of course 1 Cor. 14 DOES speak of women who are WIVES of husbands, but, if you believe 1 Tim. 2:12 speaks of WIVES, too, who are CHILDBEARING, then, a woman who comes along and is used by God to PASTOR a church will make sense to you being DIFFERENT, an EXCEPTION to the rule of WHO is teaching and preaching authority over men.

Makes sense to me. I'm not going to go and condemn women for being pastors and teachers in churches because God's using them in that role NOW. Silly to fight God's CURRENT will for that person's life. Just silly, philly. So the bible says what it says to you. Good. Great. And, so what? :) Simple observation shows that MANY women today pastor churches and are producing GOOD FRUIT. Simple example? Sure, Joseph talking to his brothers who put him in a pit, sold him to be a slave, speaking of slave, since you want to talk that word on here, illogically, at that.

But, what did Joseph say, crying with his 12 brothers all huddled together with him as Joseph was 2nd in charge in Egypt at this time, "What you intended for evil God MADE OUT to be GOOD."


So. Be careful. Sure, Scripture says what it says, but, God, knows we humans are ALL imperFeCt and makes 'lemonade' out of the 'lemon' decisions of our life. Not being too sour, not to mention, dour, with you all, male chauvinists on here, I hope and pray :)