THE FIRST BLAST TO AWAKE WOMEN DEGENERATE

Paul said some questionable things in my opinion like when he said that he wishes everyone could stay single so they could focus on the ministry... Trying to keep it Christian chat friendly but then he said... If you just have to now chica wow wow, then go ahead and get married so you don't burn with lust
And then when he talks about the relationship between husband and wife, he doesn't go into any of the positive things that make a marriage great like communication, mutual respect etc.
He seems to have the opinion that physical gratification is the only real reason to get married

Your approach had serious problems when you try to equate the use of a word describing human to human relationships to that of God to human relationships. You say the Hebrew for "help" is used of God also, which indeed it does. But, then you go on to write:

"they indicate full equality and correspondence to the man"

So, there is "full equality" between God and his creation, man? That is ridiculous. Paul made clear how to view this and I'll take Paul's inspired commentary of any man.

"For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man:" (1Cor 11:8-9, ASV)

"But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, then Eve; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression:" (1Tim 2:12-14, ASV)
When Paul said "nor to have dominion over a man", that certainly would include political, government office.

Another illustration of the nonsense of equating a word's use between humans, as the same when the word used of relationship between God and man.

"But because the LORD loved(H160/ahabah) you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the LORD brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." (Deut 7:8, KJV)

But, in the describing the "love" Amnon had for Tamar, which was rape, the same word is used:

"Then Amnon hated her exceedingly; so that the hatred wherewith he hated her was greater than the love(H160/ahabah) wherewith he had loved her. And Amnon said unto her, Arise, be gone." (2Sam 13:15, KJV)

God was a helper to the man by giving him a helper, and that is certainly true.

Since it is so often remarked that Bible was written in a culture of patriarchy, haters of women, etc.; I must conclude then that those making that foolish remark deny that the Bible is truly God's word to man, but merely man's word about God. God did not allow man to pervert his words by the culture of the times:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (2Pet 1:20-21, KJV)

or

"Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2Pet 1:20-21, NET2.1)

or

"But, above all, remember that no prophecy in Scripture will be found to have come from the prophet's own prompting; for never did any prophecy come by human will, but men sent by God spoke as they were impelled by the Holy Spirit." (2Pet 1:20-21, Weymouth)

I am very confident that if I were to pick and choose what you have said I could make you appear to be a jerk.

Paul presents the gospel as a love story, and much of what he speaks balances out an otherwise evil and adulterous age.

Why would you focus on this one point and not point out that Paul said that husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church? And his advice to wives to submit to their own husbands as to the Lord. When you get down to it these two points are the root cause of all marital problems.

Yet another typical women bashing thread.

The Bible doesn't explicitly condemn women in positions of secular leadership (in general), nor does it explicitly forbid women from being in secular leadership.

I am a complementarian in the sense that male headship should be for the home and for the church. For the secular society at large, a male doesn't necessarily have to be the head and a woman is not in sin by being a secular leader (whether that be a manager/supervisor in a company or a political office, just to name a couple of examples).

There have been (and are) many instances where a woman in a position of secular power was/is a good thing and others in which it was/is a bad thing. To use an example from Scripture, Queen Jezebel (wife of King Ahab) was a horrible example of female leadership (she definitely "wore the pants" in that relationship). On the other hand, Queen Esther is a good example of female leadeership.

$0.02

You wrote: "Paul said some questionable things in my opinion..." and I'm sure the regenerate children of God are eager to place your opinion above that of the Holy Spirit inspired Paul.

Paul's advice at the earlier part of the chapter -

"Yet I would that all men were even as I myself. Howbeit each man hath his own gift from God, one after this manner, and another after that. But I say to the unmarried and to widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they have not continency, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1Cor 7:7-9, ASV)

There was a reason for Paul's advice to the men not to get married and it is given in 1 Cor. 7:26 -

"I think therefore that this is good by reason of the distress that is upon us, namely, that it is good for a man to be as he is. Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But shouldest thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Yet such shall have tribulation in the flesh: and I would spare you." (1Cor 7:26-28, ASV)

Paul was speaking of that time then existing for them not some general ban of marriage.

Speaking of help meet, that phrase has evolved to a single word "helpmeet", because it is often used to mean "helpmate".

However, the word "meet" in KJV English can either mean "suitable/proper" or "due/just" (cf. Genesis 2 and Romans 1). There might be other meanings for "meet" in Scripture, but those two definitions are what came to mind.

In other words, God made the woman for the man so that she would be a help "suitable" or "proper" for him.

Great point, so not only does he require that the Bishop be the husband of one wife so that you would have a couple that is an example to the body and that can minister to both men and women but also because that man needs a proper helper. I think every pastor will get feedback from their wife after the service, she will pray for him, advise him, and give him lots of useful and proper help.

That said the Woman priest who is not married is saying she doesn't need that balance.

with regard to Queen Elizabeth and her children, those who are wealthy can afford nannies and to be homeschooled or have governesses or tutors where teaching is one on one.

Most who dont have the means, do not.

Many rich parents choose to send their children to boarding schools nevertheless where their children are treated harshly and told to toughen up, and do not have much contact and affection.

It cannot be said that the role of Queen made Elizabeth a bad mother, when all four of her children had everything and never wanted for anything. Equal responsibility for their upbringing must ALSO lie with their dad as well.

Was he a good example? Did they learn faithfulness from his as well? Was he truly a christian?

Children are treated harshly at boarding school? I went to boarding school in England with one of the heirs to the British throne and we were not "treated harshly". Yes, I was caned, but the idea that this is a harsh, barbaric corporal punishment is greatly exagerated.

I loved every minute of my time at that school

Deborah was there to administer justice, not to rule Israel. That is exactly why she encouraged Barak to do his job. It would appear that Barak was a coward. In the end it was Jael who got the job done.

And she dwelt under the palm tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in mount Ephraim: and the children of Israel came up to her for judgment*. (Judges 4:5)

*Strong's Concordance
mishpat: judgment
Original Word: מִשְׁפָט
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: mishpat
Phonetic Spelling: (mish-pawt')
Definition: judgment

Does "helpmeet" indicate subservience at all?

No, because if it did, it would imply that God is subservient to humankind, which of course He is not. Therefore, does it imply any subservience of women to men? Not at all.

Paul's words need to be taken in context, not in isolation. That includes cultural context, which is typically ignored because it contradicts the complementarian narrative.

I wondered this. While I do largely agree with the original poster, we are at war at the moment. Some things are expedient, permitted, even necessary, in war, which otherwise would not be so.

Deborah accompanied Barak into battle. There are plenty of other examples in scripture where women did things they weren't allowed (or supposed) to do because of necessity. The Queen of Sheba visited Solomon for his wisdom, but the bible doesn't downplay this because she should have let the king of Sheba do it. Best not be trying to fight a civil war over gender, when we're in a war already.

I think when dealing with an infinite and Holy mind while possessing a corrupted and finite one we would do well to approach the scriptures with much greater humility than was exercised at the outset. It's certainly reasonable to search the scriptures with the greatest of fervor, but a dose of meekness couldn't hurt.

The children certainly didn't learn faithfulness from their father was habitually unfaithful to his wife.

Nah. Knox is not rolling over at all. He is a lot wiser now than when he wrote his booklet and one day we all will be.

The fact of the matter, is that men in positions of authority in church and in all secular office, are the ones most likely to fail in various ways.

Women are as redeemed as men and men have nothing to do with that or with their own redemption, should they be, either.

Why do men who have a hatred for women think they need to tell everyone about it?

Hold up!! Slam on the brakes!!! You're telling me that God in heaven is MORE offended by women in the pulpit than He is about abortion?! Please tell me you didn't just make that utterly ridiculous comparison!!

The Act of Abortion is in the Bible

Abortion is specifically mentioned in the scriptures. The word abort means to "bring to a premature end because of a problem or a fault". So you might abort the launch of a spacecraft. Why would God use such an inhumane, cold and heartless word for the cold blooded murder of babies. So just because He doesn't use the term "abort" doesn't mean the fact is not there.

Leviticus 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.

The word for a baby before you can tell if it is a boy or girl is "foetus" which means seed. If you abort a baby before 8 weeks it is "your seed" and you then will burn it along with all medical waste, hence you will cause it to pass through the fire. However, we have recently discovered (at least I have) that these abortions are not allegorical burnt offerings to Moloch but real burnt offerings. They are actually sacrificing babies and children to Moloch today. They do it in secret because it is illegal, but they do it and that is why they went beserk when the latest ruling concerning Roe V. Wade was made.

Leviticus 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones.

So there is a law if you live in the land. It isn't sufficient to say "Lord, I never had an abortion". If anyone in the land does you are required to put an end to it.

Leviticus 20:3 And I will set my face against that man, and will cut him off from among his people; because he hath given of his seed unto Molech, to defile my sanctuary, and to profane my holy name.

Abortion defiles the church and profanes the holy name of Jesus

Leviticus 20:4 And if the people of the land do any ways hide their eyes from the man, when he giveth of his seed unto Molech, and kill him not:

Read the Roe v. Wade ruling, they argued that according to the US constitution they were supposed to hide their eyes from anyone who has an abortion.

Leviticus 20:5 Then I will set my face against that man, and against his family, and will cut him off, and all that go a whoring after him, to commit whoredom with Molech, from among their people.

We have had 60 million abortions in the US and many polls have 50% of the country or more supporting this practice in some form or other. It is quite reasonable to think that God has set his face against 200 million people in America and will cut them off. Now if the fulfillment of the Messiah being cut off after 69 weeks was that he was arrested, tried in a kangaroo court, mocked, scourged, and crucified. What do you think God could mean here about cutting off those who abort their babies or who support abortion or who tell others to hide their eyes over it?

Jeremiah 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Now just in case you think there is some confusion over the word "seed" there is no confusion here. If the baby is old enough you can refer to them as a son or daughter. This may or may not be infanticide. It could just as easily refer to late term abortion.

God appointed a woman to be the new PM of the UK.