If men got the Titus 2 Treatment…

[dcontroversal]

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!

Dead with Adam! I must also add...not as fun

 

[Jhana]

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.


1. Sweating:
Take a look around our culture and you will see millions of men who earn a living by working in climate controlled office buildings. Such work may be mentally strenuous, but far too often, it can be accomplished without even breaking a sweat.
The curse of Genesis 3 clearly describes man’s primary activity as difficult physical labor. “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground,” God declares in Genesis 3:19.
David, who is described as a “man after God’s own heart” (Acts 13:22) was a shepherd (1 Samuel 16:11), who clubbed wild animals to death (1 Samuel 17:35-25). He was also a warrior (1 Samuel 18:27) and a king (2 Samuel 12:30).
The men of Scripture—Abraham, Isaac, Sampson, Daniel, Jesus, Peter, Paul—are men of action whose occupations centered around physical labor like farming, shepherding, carpentry, tent-making, and fighting animals with their bare hands. (Note: any exceptions to this trend should be immediately discounted as irrelevant anomalies.) Nowhere in Scripture is a man of God described as sitting at a desk in an office building from nine to five. Nowhere.
So men who wish to honor God with their lives and humbly submit to His will should make physical labor their primary occupation, and resist the urge to give in to our culture’s glorification of “white collar” work, which is a departure from biblical principles of masculinity.
Now, some men will say they find office work more stimulating and rewarding than manual labor, or that it provides more financial security in their particular situation, but these men are more interested in pursuing selfish ambitions and wealth than submitting themselves to the Word of God. Our culture’s rampant obesity epidemic among men can be clearly traced to this departure from God’s perfect design. And it threatens to undo our whole society, negatively affecting our children and generations to come.


2. Kissing
It may surprise many men to learn that one of the most common instructions found in New Testament Scripture is for Christians to “greet one another with holy kiss” (Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 11 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:26, 1 Peter 5:14). In 1 Thessalonians 5:26, Paul specifically instructs men to do this.
Yet despite the fact that this is one of the most repeated directives of Scripture, one is hard-pressed to find men kissing one another on the cheeck in churches today. This is because those who do not take the Bible seriously claim these clear teachings of Scripture have a “cultural” component.
But let us not forget that God’s word does not change or pass away (Malachi 3:6, Mark 13:31) and also that studying the Greco-Roman cultural context of the New Testament is kind of a pain. We are therefore obligated to take God at his word, whether these instructions make sense in our culture or not.


3. Hand-Raising
I Timothy 2 stipulates the responsibilities of men and women in worship.
Thankfully, 1 Timothy 2:12—“I do not permit a woman to assume authority over a man”—continues to be rigidly applied in many churches today without regard to its original context or intended audience. However, the instructions 1 Timothy 2:8—“I want men EVERYWHERE to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing” (emphasis mine) is taken as a sort of suggestion that need not be directly enforced in the modern church.
Often I have been to churches where women are properly silenced, but men do not even bother to lift their hands during prayer! Furthermore, some of these men are known to engage in public disputes around theology—often on their blogs—which this passage clearly condemns.
And it’s not just the rules for worship in 1 Timothy 2 that men have chosen to disregard. These days, little attention is paid to 1 Corinthians 11:14—“Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him”—even though the language used here is the same used in Romans 1:26, which many Christians are quite fond of citing when condemning other people.


In summary, if staying true to the Word of God means applying its instructions to women literally, without regard to their cultural contexts or original intended audiences, then faithfulness requires we do the same for men.
It’s only fair.

I kind of agree with this 'fair for one, fair for all' treatment, that is, if a person takes everything in their bible literally. However, not everyone views the bible's particular feminine or masculine instructions as holy writ in their entirety, but some view them only as beneficial words pertaining to particular times. In fact, I did a search the other day for forged bible pieces and some of the verses generally agreed to be latter additions or forgeries are ones pertaining to female roles in the church and the like.

There are actually a considerable number of verses in English translations that are considered to be additions after the original scripts.

The KJV was based on scripts no earlier than the 1100's. We've now found scripts from no earlier than the 200's, which don't have certain verses in them.

Interesting to know, I thought.

 

[secularhermit]

Wow, MISTY!

I have liked this:

"A quote from King Jan III of Poland after the 17th-century Battle of Vienna

"Venimus, Vidimus, Deus vicit"[SUP][/SUP] ("We came, We saw, God conquered")—is an allusion to the phrase."

We, LatinAmericans, know "our" language have borrowed a lot from Latin.

 

[Animus]

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.

Jesus didn't beat around the bush when he insulted people. I suppose I should be more clear though, Jesus didn't use parody in the way you do. He didn't go around saying things like, "I hate God, so I'm going to go worship other gods and whip myself". You can see the difference because people read your initial post and believed it was genuine. The main purpose of this thread is to take a jab at men and then sidestep any refutation by claiming "illustration" as though this somehow lessens the claim. The reasoning behind feminine gender roles extends beyond a few verses, which is why it, as many other parts of the bible, are not considered to be merely cultural. I see rational, exhaustive discussions about a variety of other topics in this forum, but all I'm hearing from feminists is this bitter mockery.

 

[secularhermit]

Dead with Adam! I must also add...not as fun

Long life for ALL those GOD had chosen, no matter the gender (no matter "sex" diversity).

 

[mystdancer50]

Jesus didn't beat around the bush when he insulted people.

Jesus insulted people? Hmmm. I don't think so.

Insulted: be offensive to somebody: to say or do something rude or insensitive that offends somebody; show contempt for somebody: to say or do something that suggests a low opinion of somebody; offensive words or action: a remark or action that offends somebody, usually because it is rude or insensitive

That is not Jesus. Jesus has never insulted anyone.

 

[Misty77]

Jesus didn't beat around the bush when he insulted people. I suppose I should be more clear though, Jesus didn't use parody in the way you do. He didn't go around saying things like, "I hate God, so I'm going to go worship other gods and whip myself". You can see the difference because people read your initial post and believed it was genuine. The main purpose of this thread is to take a jab at men and then sidestep any refutation by claiming "illustration" as though this somehow lessens the claim. The reasoning behind feminine gender roles extends beyond a few verses, which is why it, as many other parts of the bible, are not considered to be merely cultural. I see rational, exhaustive discussions about a variety of other topics in this forum, but all I'm hearing from feminists is this bitter mockery.

This was strictly an intellectual exercise, with no malice intended on my part. To continue to accuse me of such is an ad hominem attack, a common logical fallacy. You are welcome to disagree as there is liberty in Christ. But accusing me of deceit and bitterness is, especially in a public forum, bearing false witness against me. I will ask you to please be respectful and engage with me on an intellectual level, dear brother.

 

[Praus]

Jesus insulted people? Hmmm. I don't think so.

That is not Jesus. Jesus has never insulted anyone.

The scribes and Pharisees probably felt insulted.

Matt 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, ...

 

[Praus]

This is edited from the original blog. I have pasted one of the deleted paragraphs below, or you can follow the link embedded in the title.

I followed the link per your suggestion, it says something about John Piper...

 

[mystdancer50]

The scribes and Pharisees probably felt insulted.

Matt 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, ...

Feelings does not speak truth all the time, does it? The post didn't say that some folks may have been insulted by what Jesus said. The post said that Jesus insulted people, which He never did.

 

[secularhermit]

Jesus insulted people? Hmmm. I don't think so.



That is not Jesus. Jesus has never insulted anyone.

KJV

Mat_11:6 And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.


Mat 13:21 Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.

Mat_13:57 And they were offended in him. But Jesus said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and in his own house.

Mat_15:12 Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?

Mat_24:10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.

LITV

Mat_24:10 And then many will be offended, and they will deliver up one another and will hate one another.

Mar_6:3 Is this One not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joseph and Judas and Simon? And are not His sisters here with us? And they were offended in Him.

Mar 14:27 And Jesus saith unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep shall be scattered.

Joh_16:1 I have spoken these things to you so that you may not be offended.

 

[mystdancer50]

Offended does not equal insulted. "Offensive" is used in the definition, however, it is in the means of being cruel and cold and mean to someone. Did Jesus ever do anything with malice? Nope. Has Jesus ever insulted someone? Nope. Have people felt insulted? Sure. Does this mean Jesus was insulting them? Nope.

 

[Yahshua]

Offended does not equal insulted. "Offensive" is used in the definition, however, it is in the means of being cruel and cold and mean to someone. Did Jesus ever do anything with malice? Nope. Has Jesus ever insulted someone? Nope. Have people felt insulted? Sure. Does this mean Jesus was insulting them? Nope.

Not meaning to derail the thread but surely the following are insults?

John 8:44

You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.​

Christ just called these religious men, who thought highly of themselves, "the devil's seed" who are a bunch of liars and murders like him.

Matthew 23:15 & 27

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves..."Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean...​

Christ just called these religious men, who thought highly of themselves, "children of hell" "walking dead" and "hypocrites"...and this was in front of everyone.

Insulted: be offensive to somebody: to say or do something rude or insensitive that offends somebody; show contempt for somebody: to say or do something that suggests a low opinion of somebody; offensive words or action: a remark or action that offends somebody, usually because it is rude or insensitive

 

[Misty77]

Not meaning to derail the thread but surely the following are insults?

And yet, you did.

Using the definition above, Jesus was never insulting, though people may have certainly felt that way.

 

[mystdancer50]

And yet, you did.
View attachment 72079
Using the definition above, Jesus was never insulting, though people may have certainly felt that way.

I think that is the key, too. The definition of insult/insulting/insulted. Now, if we were saying that someone may have felt insulted by something Jesus said, by all means, I wouldn't argue. Yet, as you and I showed, the issue is not the FEELINGS of one person, but rather the INTENT of Christ, and He never insulted anyone. It is all perspective. What I find so maddening is that so many are arguing to show that Christ was insulting. Isn't that contrary to what we should be doing? Shouldn't we be ever focused on showing the truth of Christ, that He is good and just and kind and loving and, yes, confrontational, but never cruel, mean, insulting, full of malice? Strange times, I daresay.

On a side note, Misty, you're awesome and I would have given you much more reputation in this thread, but alas, they make us spread it around before we can give it to the same person again, as you know.

 

[jimmydiggs]

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.


1. Sweating:
Take a look around our culture and you will see millions of men who earn a living by working in climate controlled office buildings. Such work may be mentally strenuous, but far too often, it can be accomplished without even breaking a sweat.
The curse of Genesis 3 clearly describes man’s primary activity as difficult physical labor. “By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground,” God declares in Genesis 3:19.
David, who is described as a “man after God’s own heart” (Acts 13:22) was a shepherd (1 Samuel 16:11), who clubbed wild animals to death (1 Samuel 17:35-25). He was also a warrior (1 Samuel 18:27) and a king (2 Samuel 12:30).
The men of Scripture—Abraham, Isaac, Sampson, Daniel, Jesus, Peter, Paul—are men of action whose occupations centered around physical labor like farming, shepherding, carpentry, tent-making, and fighting animals with their bare hands. (Note: any exceptions to this trend should be immediately discounted as irrelevant anomalies.) Nowhere in Scripture is a man of God described as sitting at a desk in an office building from nine to five. Nowhere.
So men who wish to honor God with their lives and humbly submit to His will should make physical labor their primary occupation, and resist the urge to give in to our culture’s glorification of “white collar” work, which is a departure from biblical principles of masculinity.
Now, some men will say they find office work more stimulating and rewarding than manual labor, or that it provides more financial security in their particular situation, but these men are more interested in pursuing selfish ambitions and wealth than submitting themselves to the Word of God. Our culture’s rampant obesity epidemic among men can be clearly traced to this departure from God’s perfect design. And it threatens to undo our whole society, negatively affecting our children and generations to come.


2. Kissing
It may surprise many men to learn that one of the most common instructions found in New Testament Scripture is for Christians to “greet one another with holy kiss” (Romans 16:16, 1 Corinthians 16:20, 11 Corinthians 13:12, 1 Thessalonians 5:26, 1 Peter 5:14). In 1 Thessalonians 5:26, Paul specifically instructs men to do this.
Yet despite the fact that this is one of the most repeated directives of Scripture, one is hard-pressed to find men kissing one another on the cheeck in churches today. This is because those who do not take the Bible seriously claim these clear teachings of Scripture have a “cultural” component.
But let us not forget that God’s word does not change or pass away (Malachi 3:6, Mark 13:31) and also that studying the Greco-Roman cultural context of the New Testament is kind of a pain. We are therefore obligated to take God at his word, whether these instructions make sense in our culture or not.


3. Hand-Raising
I Timothy 2 stipulates the responsibilities of men and women in worship.
Thankfully, 1 Timothy 2:12—“I do not permit a woman to assume authority over a man”—continues to be rigidly applied in many churches today without regard to its original context or intended audience. However, the instructions 1 Timothy 2:8—“I want men EVERYWHERE to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing” (emphasis mine) is taken as a sort of suggestion that need not be directly enforced in the modern church.
Often I have been to churches where women are properly silenced, but men do not even bother to lift their hands during prayer! Furthermore, some of these men are known to engage in public disputes around theology—often on their blogs—which this passage clearly condemns.
And it’s not just the rules for worship in 1 Timothy 2 that men have chosen to disregard. These days, little attention is paid to 1 Corinthians 11:14—“Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him”—even though the language used here is the same used in Romans 1:26, which many Christians are quite fond of citing when condemning other people.


In summary, if staying true to the Word of God means applying its instructions to women literally, without regard to their cultural contexts or original intended audiences, then faithfulness requires we do the same for men.
It’s only fair.

Men should not have long hair, nor should women have short hair.


Men should do physical work.

In many countries, they do greet with a kiss. It's something we mostly don't do in the US due to the anglo-saxon culture. Certainly doesn't excuse it either.


Consistancy is good.

 

[dcontroversal]

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?

Your reply was immature...Eve was in the transgression...so I will take God's view of the situation!

 

[mystdancer50]

Your reply was immature...Eve was in the transgression...so I will take God's view of the situation!

Immature? Really? Let's see what God's view is on the situation, shall we?

Genesis 3:6 says, "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate." emphasis mine

What does this mean? Well, Matthew Henry states it plainly enough:

He did eat, overcome by his wife’s importunity. It is needless to ask, "What would have been the consequence if Eve only had transgressed?’’ The wisdom of God, we are sure, would have decided the difficulty, according to equity; but, alas! the case was not so; Adam also did eat. "And what great harm if he did?’’ say the corrupt and carnal reasonings of a vain mind. What harm! Why, this act involved disbelief of God’s word, together with confidence in the devil’s, discontent with his present state, pride in his own merits, and ambition of the honour which comes not from God, envy at God’s perfections, and indulgence of the appetites of the body. In neglecting the tree of life of which he was allowed to eat, and eating of the tree of knowledge which was forbidden, he plainly showed a contempt of the favours God had bestowed on him, and a preference given to those God did not see fit for him. He would be both his own carver and his own master, would have what he pleased and do what he pleased: his sin was, in one word, disobedience (Rom. 5:19 ), disobedience to a plain, easy, and express command, which probably he knew to be a command of trial. He sinned against great knowledge, against many mercies, against light and love, the clearest light and the dearest love that ever sinner sinned against. He had no corrupt nature within him to betray him; but had a freedom of will, not enslaved, and was in his full strength, not weakened or impaired. He turned aside quickly.

1 Timothy 2:14 tells us, "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." Here, we plainly see that to keep saying, "Eve is the reason we're all sinners" is false. Adam sinned willingly, Eve, though she did truly sin, she was deceived. How pompous is man to blame Eve for their actions! It seems to me that men who want to domineer women and crush them, they turn to Eve and pour all the blame on her, yet we see who willingly forsook God and did what he wanted to do, regardless of knowing what was right and wrong.

I could go on for awhile, but I'll close with this. Romans 5:12-15 states, "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned— (For until the law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the offense. For if by the one man’s offense many died, much more the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abounded to many. "

Notice that Eve is not mentioned even a single time. Not once. But who is mentioned many times? Why, Adam, of course? And what does it say? It says that through ONE MAN sin entered. Not through ONE WOMAN.

And, again, he didn't eat it because he loved her. He ate it because he wanted to and he could care less what would happen between him and God and him and Eve. How do I know? Because that's the reason ALL OF US sin. Because in the moment, we could care less what it means to God and others.

 

[Misty77]

Your reply was immature...Eve was in the transgression...so I will take God's view of the situation!

Her response was accurate, and in accordance with scripture (aka. God's view). Eve was deceived, and Adam transgressed willfully. Please treat our dear sister Mystdancer with respect and don't derail the thread.

 

[Misty77]

I think that is the key, too. The definition of insult/insulting/insulted. Now, if we were saying that someone may have felt insulted by something Jesus said, by all means, I wouldn't argue. Yet, as you and I showed, the issue is not the FEELINGS of one person, but rather the INTENT of Christ, and He never insulted anyone. It is all perspective. What I find so maddening is that so many are arguing to show that Christ was insulting. Isn't that contrary to what we should be doing? Shouldn't we be ever focused on showing the truth of Christ, that He is good and just and kind and loving and, yes, confrontational, but never cruel, mean, insulting, full of malice? Strange times, I daresay.

On a side note, Misty, you're awesome and I would have given you much more reputation in this thread, but alas, they make us spread it around before we can give it to the same person again, as you know.

Awwww, you're awesome, too, Mystdancer!