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

[homwardbound]

I will say that to apply those scriptures to the subject is, well, I don't know what it is.
I, being a man that reads and understands the bible, am embarrassed by your lack of comprehension of God's word.

So let us both then leave this up to God:
Romans 14:4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand.
Romans 14:10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

are free to choose to either walk by flesh or the Spirit of God. Me seeing from the Spiirt of God there is no mal, female, Jew, Greek we are all one in the Spirit of God if we aqre baptized in the Spirit of God by God and from God/
Sorry you are not seeing this way, for now

 

[homwardbound]

"IT IS WAHT IT IS"
God loves us all, regardless and does want us all to grow up in him not flesh for God:
John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

 

[phil112]

I'm more lenient than this and allow an understanding of the wives spoken of in 1 Cor. 14 are not women who are called to be pastors by God,........................


But, yes, God can call women to pastor in a church, you might not think so, but the Holy Spirit can do it, not often, but, it's done in today's world. Otherwise, the 100s of women pastors out there today are all sinning and spiting God. I don't believe that, Philly. Do you

First of all, who is philly?
Second, how magnanimous of you to grant someone something that God denied them.
Third, why yes, I do believe they are in disobedience to God.

 

[tucksma]

Your posts are fruitless. You say I am trusting man by going with what the bible says, you go by your own understanding by saying they were wrong. Either way we are both trusting men. I trust others who have training in translation while you trust yourself who probably has little to no Hebrew translations skills as most do not. You are talking about Christs death a lot, but that has little to do with the concept of women and their role. Christ died for everyone, but that doesn't mean our "jobs" are not different in the body of Christ. You are very scatter brained. I have not once said that men have no abused this authority. I know they have, what I am saying is that men do have authority, and they do. Men have overdone it, but they do still have an authority. Adam had authority over Eve. Husband over wife. Brothers in Christ over the church. Jesus over the Church. It is quite clear in scripture. Men have forgotten to love their wives like Christ loves them, but that doesn't negate the fact that men do have authority. Stay on the topic at hand, and stop going into things that are rather irrelevant to this topic.

 

[tucksma]

"IT IS WAHT IT IS"
God loves us all, regardless and does want us all to grow up in him not flesh for God:
John 4:23 But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Yeahhhhh...God doesn't have the attitude of "it is what it is". Also God can love everyone and give them different roles or jobs in the Body. You say we are walking in flesh when we disagree with you? Maybe you need to check yourself to make sure your view is in accordance to the word. Clearly, as Paul points out, it is not.

 

[Rachel20]

I don't care what other women think, I know that this works, because I know what I want out of a man.

Genesis 3:16
To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”

I resent women who treat men like wimps, because they are ruining my chances at getting a decent guy.

Ephesians 4:31
Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice.

James 4:7
Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.

 

[Rachel20]

I think the Word is pretty clear.
Women are supposed to be meek.
Like a tame horse

“Think you a little din can daunt mine ears?
Have I not in my time heard lions roar?
Have I not heard the sea, puffed up with winds,
Rage like an angry boar chafed with sweat?
Have I not heard great ordinance in the field,
And Heaven's artillery thunder in the skies?
Have I not in a pitched battle heard
Loud 'larums, neighing steeds, and trumpets' clang?
And do you tell me of a woman's tongue,
That gives not half so great a blow to hear
As will a chestnut in a farmer's fire?
Tush! tush! fear boys with bugs"
-- William Shakespeare, The Taming of the Shrew

 

[biscuit]

A woman being bold in her faith doesn't emasculate men. One gender is not elevated at the expense of another. We are joint-heirs and co-laborers for Christ. We can be confident without being condescending.

There are Biblical examples which I have already listed earlier in the thread regarding ordained female leadership.

In the workplace (the primary goal of this thread), there are many times that women are in authority over men. And it is entirely appropriate.

I agree with you to a certain extent ... but the system holds a man accountable for his family more than a woman. Nothing can explain this better than than a woman carrying a man's last name in marriage. It is more often than not that the man has to explain and account for the mistakes and wrongdoings with his family (wife & children). With both husband & wife present in a courtroom's proceedings, whom do you think judges look at first for the story (example: neighbor's complaint). What are and have been the biggest reasons for divorce in this country: POWER, sex & money. I agree with Sophia 100%. Many of today's women want to have it all, meaning they want men to take care of them as demanded by the NT, and have their freedom as demanded by feminists. And we wonder why men today don't want to marry. Just too many women who are abusing the system (playing on both side of the fence) because they can ... and making it extremely difficult for those women with righteous qualities to get married.

 

[biscuit]

Victoria we haven't once said women should be oppressed. We are reading the bible and showing that the bible teaches that men have authority over women, not in that they can whip them around, but that the men (mainly in the church and in the family) make the final decision. This is shown in example throughout the whole bible, not just Paul's letter's. Paul is the only one to say it bluntly. Women have a giant pull on what the "final decision" will be, if the man respects her like the bible says he is to do. Also preaching and pasturing are different. One leads a church, one can be done to anyone. We aren't attacking women. Also we are looking at your opinion but in the end either you are right, I am right, or neither of us are. Because we have posing views we can't both be right. To embrace every view as truth is unbiblical.

Great Post!! There are some women who will be offended if any man exercise his authority given by God to rule his household. Feminist ideology (45 years) is the prevalent rule of thought for many women in the 21st century than the Church. and we wonder why the intitution of marriage is in BIG trouble.

 

[Misty77]

I agree with you to a certain extent ... but the system holds a man accountable for his family more than a woman. Nothing can explain this better than than a woman carrying a man's last name in marriage. It is more often than not that the man has to explain and account for the mistakes and wrongdoings with his family (wife & children). With both husband & wife present in a courtroom's proceedings, whom do you think judges look at first for the story (example: neighbor's complaint). What are and have been the biggest reasons for divorce in this country: POWER, sex & money. I agree with Sophia 100%. Many of today's women want to have it all, meaning they want men to take care of them as demanded by the NT, and have their freedom as demanded by feminists. And we wonder why men today don't want to marry. Just too many women who are abusing the system (playing on both side of the fence) because they can ... and making it extremely difficult for those women with righteous qualities to get married.

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.

 

[Misty77]

Great Post!! There are some women who will be offended if any man exercise his authority given by God to rule his household. Feminist ideology (45 years) is the prevalent rule of thought for many women in the 21st century than the Church. and we wonder why the intitution of marriage is in BIG trouble.

The "institution of marriage" is in trouble because people do things that are bad. Women having equal rights is a good thing. Until feminism, men could legally beat their wives. They could legally rape their wives. They "owned" the children in a marriage so if a woman tried to leave her abuser, then she couldn't take her children with her. If a man left his wife, she couldn't get alimony or keep her property. It wasn't even her property. Feminism took root in our country because men were allowed unfettered access to abuse and mistreat their wives without penalty. If the "good" men had made sure that all people had equal protection under the law, then there would have been nothing for feminists to rise against.

Since the "good" people were against feminism, there was nothing holding it back from going too far in the wrong direction. That is why the man-hating, pro-abortion extremists are taking the lead on women's rights. If Christian men had been as interested in protecting their sisters, mothers, daughters, and wives as they were in making sure they knew their place, feminism would never have had a leg to stand on.

 

[Praus]

Women are supposed to be meek.
Not weak, but meek. Meek means having strength under control. Like a tame horse: it is powerful, much stronger than it's jockey, but obedient.

.............

 

[Praus]

............

“Think you a little din can daunt mine ears?
Have I not in my time heard lions roar?
Have I not heard the sea, puffed up with winds,
Rage like an angry boar chafed with sweat?
Have I not heard great ordinance in the field,
And Heaven's artillery thunder in the skies?
Have I not in a pitched battle heard
Loud 'larums, neighing steeds, and trumpets' clang?
And do you tell me of a woman's tongue,
That gives not half so great a blow to hear
As will a chestnut in a farmer's fire?
Tush! tush! fear boys with bugs"
-- William Shakespeare, The Taming of the Shrew


View attachment 69547

View attachment 69548

 

[Rachel20]

I agree with you to a certain extent ... but the system holds a man accountable for his family more than a woman. Nothing can explain this better than than a woman carrying a man's last name in marriage. It is more often than not that the man has to explain and account for the mistakes and wrongdoings with his family (wife & children). With both husband & wife present in a courtroom's proceedings, whom do you think judges look at first for the story (example: neighbor's complaint). What are and have been the biggest reasons for divorce in this country: POWER, sex & money. I agree with Sophia 100%. Many of today's women want to have it all, meaning they want men to take care of them as demanded by the NT, and have their freedom as demanded by feminists. And we wonder why men today don't want to marry. Just too many women who are abusing the system (playing on both side of the fence) because they can ... and making it extremely difficult for those women with righteous qualities to get married.

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.

............

 

[Rachel20]

View attachment 69575............

.........................

 

[tucksma]

The "institution of marriage" is in trouble because people do things that are bad. Women having equal rights is a good thing. Until feminism, men could legally beat their wives. They could legally rape their wives. They "owned" the children in a marriage so if a woman tried to leave her abuser, then she couldn't take her children with her. If a man left his wife, she couldn't get alimony or keep her property. It wasn't even her property. Feminism took root in our country because men were allowed unfettered access to abuse and mistreat their wives without penalty. If the "good" men had made sure that all people had equal protection under the law, then there would have been nothing for feminists to rise against.

Since the "good" people were against feminism, there was nothing holding it back from going too far in the wrong direction. That is why the man-hating, pro-abortion extremists are taking the lead on women's rights. If Christian men had been as interested in protecting their sisters, mothers, daughters, and wives as they were in making sure they knew their place, feminism would never have had a leg to stand on.

Honestly I would say God cares very little about our law. Don't get me wrong all the things you mentioned that men used to be able to do, and now can't are bad things that should never have been done, but the bible says that as well. The concept of it being allowed in the law is rather irrelevant because the law of a country is not in charge, rather the teachings of Christ as well as the OT teachings to an extent (we don't follow the law of the OT, but there is some teachings in it which we follow). I don't mean to not follow your country's laws, rather if the country laws allow rape, but the bible clearly does not, then don't do it. On the other side, if your country's law says to pray to Zeus, don't do it because the bible says not to. When it comes to things such as raping wives and well all the things you mentioned, I don't think God cares much about what a nation's law says.

This is because the followers of Christ would follow the bible's teachings. Only husbands who are not believers would do those types of things. (And I mean a true follower of the Word not a hypocrite)

Also that is just my opinion though. I think feminism is on such a rise because of how poorly men did treat their wives. I would say a true Christian wouldn't have "made sure their wife was in their place" rather the reason feminism rose was because how non-believers treated their wives. In this aspect the non-believers wouldn't have followed the "love your wife just like christ loves you" aspects of the bible, they would have followed what was permitted in the nation's law. Feminism rose because of men and women (in this case just men) leaning on the law for right and wrong, and not on the bible.

This is just my opinion though, but it seems to make sense in my head.

 

[Misty77]

Honestly I would say God cares very little about our law. Don't get me wrong all the things you mentioned that men used to be able to do, and now can't are bad things that should never have been done, but the bible says that as well. The concept of it being allowed in the law is rather irrelevant because the law of a country is not in charge, rather the teachings of Christ as well as the OT teachings to an extent (we don't follow the law of the OT, but there is some teachings in it which we follow). I don't mean to not follow your country's laws, rather if the country laws allow rape, but the bible clearly does not, then don't do it. On the other side, if your country's law says to pray to Zeus, don't do it because the bible says not to. When it comes to things such as raping wives and well all the things you mentioned, I don't think God cares much about what a nation's law says.

This is because the followers of Christ would follow the bible's teachings. Only husbands who are not believers would do those types of things. (And I mean a true follower of the Word not a hypocrite)

Also that is just my opinion though. I think feminism is on such a rise because of how poorly men did treat their wives. I would say a true Christian wouldn't have "made sure their wife was in their place" rather the reason feminism rose was because how non-believers treated their wives. In this aspect the non-believers wouldn't have followed the "love your wife just like christ loves you" aspects of the bible, they would have followed what was permitted in the nation's law. Feminism rose because of men and women (in this case just men) leaning on the law for right and wrong, and not on the bible.

This is just my opinion though, but it seems to make sense in my head.

The point is that protections and rights were not in place. Women were abused with no recourse. Good men didn't care enough about helping them to change the laws.

 

[tucksma]

My point was that these Good men shouldn't have wasted their time doing it. Christian husbands wouldn't have done the things the nation's law permitted. (True Christian) It would have been non-believers who would have been doing these things. So to change the law would have benefited non-believers, not the Body of Christ. If someone is spiritually dead, I don't think God has to much care for what happens to them. Why would he? I mean at this point, being dead in spirit, if they die they won't ever see him. This being the case why would he want believers to take time aside from preaching and trying to save them spiritually, to try and save them physically? Which is more important to a non-believer physical or spiritual health?

Good men shouldn't have been trying to fix the law, rather convert people so those people wouldn't be relying on the nation's law rather the bible.

 

[Misty77]

My point was that these Good men shouldn't have wasted their time doing it. Christian husbands wouldn't have done the things the nation's law permitted. (True Christian) It would have been non-believers who would have been doing these things. So to change the law would have benefited non-believers, not the Body of Christ. If someone is spiritually dead, I don't think God has to much care for what happens to them. Why would he? I mean at this point, being dead in spirit, if they die they won't ever see him. This being the case why would he want believers to take time aside from preaching and trying to save them spiritually, to try and save them physically? Which is more important to a non-believer physical or spiritual health?

Good men shouldn't have been trying to fix the law, rather convert people so those people wouldn't be relying on the nation's law rather the bible.

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.

 

[Praus]

Good men shouldn't have been trying to fix the law, rather convert people so those people wouldn't be relying on the nation's law rather the bible.

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.