If men got the Titus 2 Treatment…

[secularhermit]

@ Eternally-gratefull

"Quite frankly I am offended you would think I was saying they are the same. "

Please!

Help we see where is my fault to elaborate (or apologize) on where you think I have offended you.

 

[secularhermit]

A holy kiss, is not a kiss on the lips. it is a cheek to cheek or kiss on the cheek And yes i do that with most of my church family, i do not see a problem with it, it is only a problem with people who do not understand scripture and label it "Homosexual" or "Gay" to do so.

Paul would of encountered homosexuals during his time in ministry do you think that he would of not said greet them with a holy kiss if it was homosexual?

People need to remember that GOD has never changed, and never will, the only thing that has changed is men, and not for good either, I am not going to compromise to an evil world by going against my bible just because we live in a different culture, how stupid.

Have you made the "exercise" to hug and greet persons WITH A KISS in a elevator (a lift)?

Then do that in the subway!

Do you LOOK at peoples faces?

Great!

Once you have done that "spiritual" exercise I would like to pay attention to those deeds and words you would hear TO SHARE HERE.

 

[phil112]

The Crisis of Biblical Masculinity in the Church
By Roberta Heard Ellis

It has come to my attention that we are facing a crisis of biblical masculinity in the Church today. An increasing number of men are neglecting the roles God clearly outlined for them in Scripture (Genesis 3:19, 1 Thessalonians 5:26, 1 Timothy 2:8) in favor of blatant cultural capitulation. I’d like to focus on three biblical principles that many modern men, out of total disregard for Scripture, continue to ignore: sweating, kissing, and hand-raising.............................

Do you cut your hair? Do you wear a head covering in church? Just curious.

 

[secularhermit]

Am I to assume that you are on board with the kissing of your brothers, too?

If you would have asked me, young lad, I would have said I kiss a lot of persons, not for Paul´s ideas, but following my heart.

I have don´t that to girls, women, and older people I love.

When I was huged -and kissed- by a man following Paul´s ideas or foreighn culture traditions, I shrank back. I felt it disgusting, because it wasn´t a real affection, but an hipocritical kindness he follows after his church. He si one of my friends, but I don´t like to be kissed by men, except I kiss my family.

 

[RedTent]

Secularhermit, I think you have missed the point of the article. It's not meant as a literal analysis of scripture; rather, it illustrates the inequity of scriptural interpretation relating to gender. In other words: verses about women are frequently taken to very literal extremes. This blog is an example of taking verses about men to the same literal extreme. Do you see the difference now?

I love it! There is such a tendency to take everything to the extreme. Some say that spiritual directions must never be acted out physically, even though we are in a physical body so what we are and think naturally becomes what we do. Some say that if we do something that represents the spiritual, it is enough just to do it. What bewilders me is the extremes people go to about the "doing" of judiasm, when some of the precepts it expresses are so fundamental to our faith.

I hadn't thought of the gender aspects of this before, thank you.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

@ Eternally-gratefull

"Quite frankly I am offended you would think I was saying they are the same. "

Please!

Help we see where is my fault to elaborate (or apologize) on where you think I have offended you.

maybe you can help me see how else I would have taken what you said?

 

[secularhermit]

@ Eternally-gratefull

Please! I don´t see where I made wrong and offended you.

I´m lost.

 

[secularhermit]

Estuve casada con un Mexicano por 10 años. Entiendo muy bien el machismo.

I was married to a Mexican for 10 years. I understand "machismo" very well.

WoW!

Más aún, señorita (or señora). La entiendo y deseo entenderlo más.

So you are hurt (I am or was hurt) but both, feminism and machism are not fair.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

@ Eternally-gratefull

Please! I don´t see where I made wrong and offended you.

I´m lost.

1. I mentioned cultural significance as being used to interpret scripture. Namely paul and his dealing with women (of wich no one seems to wish to discuss)


2. You responded with culture and sexual sin. And how the more sexual sin we commit the more masculine we are (as to what bearing this has on anything I said, I still have no clue)

so again. How should I have interpreted what you said?

 

[Animus]

Misty, satire is more of an artistic device than an academic one;it's an underhanded technique. Trying to prove a point in this way iscounterproductive to the point you are trying to make. In fact, oneof the reasons people are skeptical of women teachers is because theybelieve women have a tenancy towards this type of passive aggressivebehavior, as apposed to just saying what they mean and then having anhonest argument about it. You still haven't made explicit thespecific points you are trying to make. Essentially the point youhave really made so far is that you either have to take the entirebible literally and unanalyzed or else throw it out the window.Atheists use this argument all the time, quoting “You shall not liewith a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” and then, “Youshall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear agarment of cloth made of two kinds of material.” In the same way,you have taken a few verses and made the false implication that ifone believes A they have to accept B, C, and D, and that likewise ifthey do not believe A they cannot believe B, C, or D. Because thereis cultural discrepancy, we cannot use this type of reasoning, orelse we do have to choose between all or nothing. As a result ofthis, we have to judge each verse on its own merit. Just because oneverse is cultural does not it's successor is going to be. So, if youwant to discuss a specific verse and argue that it is culturally basedand that we need not adhere to it anymore, then please, do soexplicit right away, because even now I am not sure of the exactverses about women you are trying to be rid of.

 

[Misty77]

Misty, satire is more of an artistic device than an academic one;it's an underhanded technique. Trying to prove a point in this way iscounterproductive to the point you are trying to make. In fact, oneof the reasons people are skeptical of women teachers is because theybelieve women have a tenancy towards this type of passive aggressivebehavior, as apposed to just saying what they mean and then having anhonest argument about it. You still haven't made explicit thespecific points you are trying to make. Essentially the point youhave really made so far is that you either have to take the entirebible literally and unanalyzed or else throw it out the window.Atheists use this argument all the time, quoting “You shall not liewith a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.” and then, “Youshall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor shall you wear agarment of cloth made of two kinds of material.” In the same way,you have taken a few verses and made the false implication that ifone believes A they have to accept B, C, and D, and that likewise ifthey do not believe A they cannot believe B, C, or D. Because thereis cultural discrepancy, we cannot use this type of reasoning, orelse we do have to choose between all or nothing. As a result ofthis, we have to judge each verse on its own merit. Just because oneverse is cultural does not it's successor is going to be. So, if youwant to discuss a specific verse and argue that it is culturally basedand that we need not adhere to it anymore, then please, do soexplicit right away, because even now I am not sure of the exactverses about women you are trying to be rid of.

Actually, our Savior used satire, so I don't think that it is either devious or exclusively feminine. Just google "Jesus + satire" because I'm not going to do your own research for you, especially since this is not the main purpose of this thread.

Additionally, this is a chat-room forum, not a complete treatise on either Biblical interpretation or gender roles. This article is not meant to be an exhaustive analysis on the subject; rather, it is merely an illustration. Theology, among other things, is logical, so this an example of a consistent application of the vein of logic that has been used in more traditional circles to define feminine gender roles.

 

[secularhermit]

1. I mentioned cultural significance as being used to interpret scripture. Namely paul and his dealing with women (of wich no one seems to wish to discuss)


2. You responded with culture and sexual sin. And how the more sexual sin we commit the more masculine we are (as to what bearing this has on anything I said, I still have no clue)

so again. How should I have interpreted what you said?

Oh! Thanks! I would say:

Point ONE: Paul´s views ARE LOCAL, somewhat jewish. Not the whole world is jewish and "the world", and its people, are not to be Paul-centered (At least I am not paul-centered).

If you take Paul´s as the Scripture the world (or I) have to look after, it is my right (or the world´s right) to believe the way EACH believes.

That is not an offense! But a right, and a decision I made.

Point TWO: I was telling YOU about the culture I was raised, the one I believed and thought it was true (I haven´t lived in USA) but I have heard machism has a common root: SIN.

I do apologize if I failed approaching the way to convey my ideas, my opinions. I just shared how machism is viewed or seeing here in Venezuela, the way I was; but I don´t need to apologize for being the person I am not for being the person I was.

I never meant to offend you or your beliefs. I am not holy, but I am invited to be santified, same as many could be invited by JESUS, according to GOD´s plans.

 

[lookuptoseeJesus]

ignore distractions.
Come back to your first love...
Ask for a relationship with Jesus and you won't care what others are doing any more.
Jesus is wonderful

 

[secularhermit]

I love you, too, dear brother. It's just a shame that when your sister in Christ wishes to engage in calm, intelligent dialogue, she is so easily slandered by those who claim to take a Biblical, masculine role of protector and leader so seriously.

I agree! That´s happens all over this SUBJECTIVE WORLD, but we are not to "imitate" ostriches.

Do we?

No one has said you aren´t smart. They said you would be biased, as Monica said some are "ill biased" or "uninformed"...

You Misty, gave many of us (or I) a chance to explore hidden things, thought we cannot share easily at churches, not even in the intimacy of those we think we have as friends.

You aer not the only one who is hurt: Count me in your number! besides, I am guilty, too. Who am I to blame OTHERS, when I also share responsibility (one I want to cast on society: A Machist and Feminist society).

You are not slandered! That is the way how many would react when you go out to preach Jesus. I was an enemy of the cross. I do said ugly things against Jesus, and His followers. So take these lesson as being trained, as being stron (stronger), becuase you have also said things not kind to Biscuit (He already knows he is old, and I am older than you). Of course! He is not going to run. You are not going to run, either.

I see this a theatre to be trained. Have you done street preaching? Some do know how people laugh at preachers (even inside their "safe" churches).

I see you as smart as you are. You need to show nothing but, considering Roberta´s and Rachel´s writings, I don´t care what they said: They have plenty right to believe "feministically" what they´ve believed (same as yours, MISTY and readers).

If I ever liked you, i like you more, now (y tú no necesitas mi simpatía, ni mi favoritismo; sino lo que eres, en persona, y QUIEN ERES, en la presencia del Señor, a quien honras y anhelas, en lo profundo de ese corazón batallante).

I love you!

I hope I could show this subjective word comes to be true, somehow.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Oh! Thanks! I would say:

Point ONE: Paul´s views ARE LOCAL, somewhat jewish. Not the whole world is jewish and "the world", and its people, are not to be Paul-centered (At least I am not paul-centered).

No. Paul was concerned with local events. No matter what culture they were. Remember he openly chasted peter for being Jewish and offending the gentile. I think you have a wrong impression of paul my friend.

ps. I am not paul centered. I am God centered. As was Paul

If you take Paul´s as the Scripture the world (or I) have to look after, it is my right (or the world´s right) to believe the way EACH believes.

That is not an offense! But a right, and a decision I made.

True. But we interpret scripture with scripture. Not what we think scripture says, or by our own biases or beliefs. Thats where we us into trouble.

Point TWO

: I was telling YOU about the culture I was raised, the one I believed and thought it was true (I haven´t lived in USA) but I have heard machism has a common root: SIN.

and I would agree.. If Machism is wha I think it is. But I do not want to judge because I do not know your interpretation.

I do apologize if I failed approaching the way to convey my ideas, my opinions. I just shared how machism is viewed or seeing here in Venezuela, the way I was; but I don´t need to apologize for being the person I am not for being the person I was.

I never meant to offend you or your beliefs. I am not holy, but I am invited to be santified, same as many could be invited by JESUS, according to GOD´s plans.

And here we would agree. I am a sinner saved by grace. Not a saint which earned my salvation.

 

[mystdancer50]

I don´t believe what you believed, but women have teached me, from home to school (all my life).

What I don´t believe what ROBERTA has written. I find her ideas insulting (but are HER ideas, not mine).

If she used Paul´s (or whomever she thinks) to back up her feministic view, I could use my ideas to back up my partiality, as a man and machist.

P.S.

May I ask you to practise that "social" experiment I already mentioned?

Muack!

It wasn't addressed to you.

 

[secularhermit]

Far from being "won" for a cause, I´d like to share these words once said:

"Veni, vidi, vici" ("Veni, vidi, vici")

Feminism and Machism (secularism, as well) would do the same in our minds and beliefs.

(Just keep this in mind)

 

[dcontroversal]

While many a man needs to put his pants on and take the lead fore sure, we wont mention the fact that...

1. A lot of women have failed to do what is biblical since EVE!<----The first woman
2. ADAM forfeited his LIFE for a woman and an gave up his walk with God<----The first man

 

[secularhermit]

It wasn't addressed to you.

Sorry! It wasn´t an offense (I´m not hurt that easy)

But my KISS still being sent to YOU, Dancer.

What would life have been without women?

I also have loved my grumpy mom. She was the perfect woman I thought she was (but I´ve kissed her, sometimes)

He! He!

 

[mystdancer50]

While many a man needs to put his pants on and take the lead fore sure, we wont mention the fact that...

1. A lot of women have failed to do what is biblical since EVE!<----The first woman
2. ADAM forfeited his LIFE for a woman and an gave up his walk with God<----The first man

Poor, poor, deceived Eve, who takes the brunt of sin upon herself, when the Bible tells us that Adam was WITH HER when she was deceived (so who failed, truly?) and the fact that the Bible itself says that sin entered the world through one man (Adam) and that Eve was deceived but Adam wasn't. The horrible thing is when we say that Adam gave up a God relationship because he loved Eve so much, he couldn't bear to live apart from her. Ah, me. How sad that the modern day Christians love to romanticize sin. "I'm only sleeping with two guys outside of wedlock because I love them both and don't want to hurt one of them. After all, isn't love what matters?" So romantic, yes?