GCM Home | Your Posts | Rules | DONATE | Bookstore | Facebook | Twitter | FAQs


Author Topic: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?  (Read 2398 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Glenn63

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
  • Manna: 1
  • Gender: Male
  • 1646 Conf. Baptist, New Cov. Theol., Prt.Preterist
Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« on: Sun Feb 17, 2013 - 10:51:06 »
I am a postmil, partial preterist and do not go into date setting or looking for specific signs for "the last day".  Yet, I know that history repeats itself and it is wise to keep ones eyes open and be vigilant to what is going on around us.  I view Matthew 24 as predicting the destruction of the temple and Jerusalem, but I see similarities that can be seen before the fall of people who have been blessed of God.  But, I see something more sinister in feminism. The New Living Translation shows something from the OT Hebrew that seldom comes out in our English versions:

“... And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”” (Ge 3:16b)

“... Sin is crouching at the door, eager to control you. But you must subdue it and be its master.”” (Ge 4:7b)

The Hebrew for "desire to control" in 3:16 and "eager to control" in 4:7 are the same.  We see right from the beginning, the desire of women is to rule over men, be in control.  In the homes, in the pulpits of our churches and in government.  But, God says men are to rule, not the women.  Yes, we can find exceptions to the rule, but that further confirms the truth of the rule itself.

When we find Jerusalem being judged by God later in the OT, we find this indictment:

“Childish leaders oppress my people, and women rule over them. O my people, your leaders mislead you; they send you down the wrong road.” (Isa 3:12)

The USA usually does not even rank in the top 10 of women's power in the modern world, yet look around us from Washington down to so many of our homes/marriages. In Scripture, when we see women in control, is it not because men have abdicated their roles?  Is this not a gauge of the depravity of mankind and how far we have sunk into rebellion against God?

Last, what did Paul indicate in Romans regarding women and gross sin?

“For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.” (Ro 1:26-27 NRSV)

"...women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural..." Women seem to have begun anal and oral intercourse with men and who knows what acts with other women, then men followed after the women's perversity!  Eve first and then Adam followed her into sin.  Here women first, then men followed into perversity.

The Jamieson-Faussett-Brown Commentary of 1871 comments on this verse:   "— that sex whose priceless jewel and fairest ornament is modesty, and which, when that is once lost, not only becomes more shameless than the other sex, but lives henceforth only to drag the other sex down to its level."

Is the world approaching "the last day" or are we going to be blessed with a renewal of the faith of Jesus Christ?  I know earthquakes, rumors of wars, etc., have happened through the centuries, but the feminism we see today?  That I find is quite new in history.  Yet, same-sex marriage is quite new too!   Oh how sinful culture has twisted God's prescribed order.


Christian Forums and Message Board

Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« on: Sun Feb 17, 2013 - 10:51:06 »

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30109
  • Manna: 530
  • Gender: Female
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #1 on: Sun Feb 17, 2013 - 11:43:24 »
Paul was speaking about men lying with men and women with women as in sexual passions and acts. He wasnt speaking about women who are in positions of power, many of whom are doing a very good job. As it happens the best Prime minister we ever had here in the UK was female(in my opinion), and our Queen has done a brilliant job and is highly respected worldwide, so I cant go along with what you say.
The verses that you quote from Genesis is about womens desire being FOR her husband, and any verses from that time obviously have applied since the fall, and not just recently. God saw fit to use women in positions of power in the Jewish nation, so I cant see why we cant as well.

There are of course some extreme feminists who have taken things too far, and many of them I suspect are those who have been deeply hurt by men and have a lot of hate and bitterness in them, and so need prayer and healing.

 

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #1 on: Sun Feb 17, 2013 - 11:43:24 »

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4488
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #2 on: Sun Feb 17, 2013 - 12:00:20 »
I think we're beginning to see a sharp divide between feminists and anti-feminists. There are women out there who are recognizing the conscious effort that needs to be made to resist the direction of the culture and how far away it is from congruence with scripture. Even many non-Christian women recognize the insanities of feminism.
Quote
There are of course some extreme feminists who have taken things too far

Those extreme feminists enjoy taxpayer funds to promote their agendas at colleges, so they're still enabled by the majority.

Offline Mog19

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Female
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #3 on: Sun Feb 17, 2013 - 13:32:18 »
I think there is a difference between the women "wanting" to dominate men and "having" to take control.
What I mean is this...
I do agree with bible teachings that a man should lead his family, IF,the man,like the bible teaches, loves his wife as he loves The Lord.
If a man loves his wife like he loves The Lord the he will be kind,loving and understanding towards her in all things.  He would not be arrogant towards her or treat her badly with the mindset of, well, God said I'm in charge,  kind of thing.
IF he is good to his wife, properly, then she should have no reason not to let him be the lead he is made to be.

Now...
IF a man shirks his responsibilities, by not working, looking after his wide and family, by not being fair to her etc, then it doesn't leave much room for the woman TO let the husband lead.
What will a wife do??  Let her husband sit and play Xbox or whatever and be lazy and STILL follow her husband? Or should she take the lead,probably reluctantly, and look after her family herself??

With regards to women leading men astray sexually???  RUBBISH?
Yes, EVE ate the fruit first but she did NOT force Adam to eat it. HE CHOSE TO end of.
Why is the blame always put on the woman?  Men are not perverse themselves then?  I really beg to differ.
This is NOT a feminist view, it's a logical, truthful look at both sides of a very tarnished coin.
Men need to take responsibility for their own sexual urges etc and stop blaming women.

Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #3 on: Sun Feb 17, 2013 - 13:32:18 »

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30109
  • Manna: 530
  • Gender: Female
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #4 on: Sun Feb 17, 2013 - 14:02:42 »
Mog I agree, and we do need to remember that more married man cheat than married women. We all have choices to be immoral or not, no matter what the temptations.

I am a strong woman who survived many things, including 6 years as single parent with three children with no support at all. My husband now is very patient and laid back and easy going. It would be easy for me to take control, but I have to choose not to do that when it is needed, and give him the room he needs to be the head of the family. His ex didnt do this and was bossy and very controlling, and constantly complained that he wasnt being the head of the family. When he tried to be,  there was hell to pay because she wasnt getting her way, so sometimes you cant win I guess.

I am blessed in that all my Christian female friends are anything but controling in their marriages and are lovely ladies.


Christian Forums and Message Board

Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #4 on: Sun Feb 17, 2013 - 14:02:42 »



Offline Mog19

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 714
  • Manna: 24
  • Gender: Female
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #5 on: Sun Feb 17, 2013 - 14:24:46 »
Chosenone, that's good to hear!!  I don't have any Christian friends so I just go by instinct and Gods word!! Lol.
I think in the day to day running of the home, I'm in charge because my husband prefers it that way, On things like shopping etc. and I always sort the bills etc out as he isn't a confident person really and gets easily flustered bless him.
But on important things I let him lead and follow what he thinks.
It wasn't always this way. I've been through everything with men,violence,abuse...  So it was really difficult for me to hand the reigns to my husband but with the lords help I've mostly got there!!
Also I think that a lot of men look at wife as a sort of surrogate mother figure sometimes. They are used to their mothers doing everything for them and can sometimes lean on their wives in the wrong way at times.
I'm very old fashioned, I go along with the man should be the hunter gatherer sort of thing and the women's role is to raise their children etc, the more gentle role, if that makes sense?

My husband isn't a Christian which obviously poses problems.  He sees nothing wrong with porn etc... He txt me the other day and asked if I want a copy of that fifty shades of grey book!!!  My reply was ummmmmmm, NO!!!  Jesus said that if you lust in your heart you have still committed adultery.  I'm not perfect by a long chalk but I can try to improve!!!  :)

Offline notreligus

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4323
  • Manna: 154
  • Gender: Male
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #6 on: Sun Feb 17, 2013 - 14:44:38 »
Paul was speaking about men lying with men and women with women as in sexual passions and acts. He wasnt speaking about women who are in positions of power, many of whom are doing a very good job. As it happens the best Prime minister we ever had here in the UK was female(in my opinion), and our Queen has done a brilliant job and is highly respected worldwide, so I cant go along with what you say.
The verses that you quote from Genesis is about womens desire being FOR her husband, and any verses from that time obviously have applied since the fall, and not just recently. God saw fit to use women in positions of power in the Jewish nation, so I cant see why we cant as well.

There are of course some extreme feminists who have taken things too far, and many of them I suspect are those who have been deeply hurt by men and have a lot of hate and bitterness in them, and so need prayer and healing.

 

I'm a Maggie fan.

Offline Glenn63

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
  • Manna: 1
  • Gender: Male
  • 1646 Conf. Baptist, New Cov. Theol., Prt.Preterist
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #7 on: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 08:00:31 »
In my initial post I was hoping for some discussion of Scripture rather than responses from sentiment and emotionalism as if we were in a testimony meeting listening to others sad tales. I'll not address those, but, some assertions were made on the Scriptures I used without any supporting logic so I wish to address those briefly. 

“... thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Ge 3:16) The American Std Vers. 1901 and the KJV are identical in this verse.

First I notice that the modern updates of these 2 versions, the NASB and NKJV have changed the preposition from "to" into a "for".  Prepositions in translation and interpretation are notoriously thorny issues and shaky upon which to base an interpretation.  See Acts 2:38, is baptism "for remission of sins"(KJV), or "to remission of sins"(YLT) or "unto remission of your sins"(ASV).  So, we need to broaden our evaluation of the context for the meaning since it may be the modern versions are influenced by our feminist culture.  It is poor practice to seek a translation that supports an already held belief rather than seeking the honest translation and interpretation which may challenge our preconception.

Second, the exact phrasing in 3:16 about women, is used when speaking of the personification of sin in Gen. 4:7 and I place the phrases in parallel:

                                “... thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Ge 3:16)
"...sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.  (Ge 4:7)

Here we can see that sin does indeed wish to control and possess Cain, the man.  Therefore, the parallel construction used earlier by Moses would likely be the same meaning, woman wishes to control and be in possession of the man. Yes, that has continued down through history.

Third, the construction of "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" is a parallel, a couplet where the second clause complements or answers the first clause.  Women wish to rule men (contrary to the creation, 1 Co. 11:9) so man will rule over the woman.  To assert that woman is to have passion, love and sexual desire for her husband does not match with the parallel nature of the sentence.

Fourth, woman in the created order would already have passion, love and sexual desire for the man which supports the command to populate the earth.  So, if we think 3:16 refers to an increase in this passion, love and sexual desire, what was woman to become, a nymphomaniac? (I hear the wisecracks from men married for over 10 years now!) 

Now as to the Romans passage:

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.” (Ro 1:26-27 ASV)

Chosenone, you wrote that Paul was referring to:   "men lying with men and women with women as in sexual passions and acts".  Sorry, I do not see a statement in that passage of "women with women".  In fact, I know of nowhere in Scripture that a sin of woman lying with woman is ever mentioned.  I've searched historical records online, and the idea of lesbianism in ancient Rome is hard to find in secular history, where male homosexuality is abundant in the records.  The question depends on what the connection of v27 is to v26 when it says "and likewise"?  Man to man sex can be anal, oral and that can be done with male to female, so that satisfied the "likewise" connection.  Yet, if there was lesbianism in ancient Rome, that can fit as well.  So, I wrote in my initial post:  "Women seem to have begun anal and oral intercourse with men and who knows what acts with other women..."  For Paul, the natural use and a use against nature would have been that which was contrary to the created order of procreation.  Are moderns fearful that this passage may prohibit oral/anal in the marriage bed and so wish to restrict this promiscuous context to only woman to woman sex?  I do not see that this passage would restrict the mutual sexual pleasures of man and wife in the marriage bed when the intent is other than reproduction.

I quoted the JFB commentary on how women lead men down the path to destruction and it was turned to a remark on men cheating more than women.  Well, whether that is true or not and it is illogical, it is beside the point of what God's word warns about in this area.  Thompson's Chain Reference Bible in 3880-3882 lists a great number of warnings against "temptresses":  Eve, Delilah, Jezebel, Zeresh, Job's wife, "strange women", Herodias and Salome.  The list then goes into warnings against harlots and the first listed I quote:

“So you will be delivered from the forbidden woman, from the adulteress with her smooth words, who forsakes the companion of her youth and forgets the covenant of her God; for her house sinks down to death, and her paths to the departed; none who go to her come back, nor do they regain the paths of life. So you will walk in the way of the good and keep to the paths of the righteous.” (Pr 2:16-20 ESV)

I try not to engage in prolonged debate, but I thought it necessary to give hermeneutic reasons for my opinions.   I either go by God's word which is truth, or I go by human feelings which may come from Satan himself!  Rational reasoning from Scripture is always profitable to us all and we continually learn and refine our understandings.  I'm 70 and still learning every day.  But, I do not gain anything by emotion based opinions.



Lively Stone

  • Guest
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #8 on: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 09:12:25 »
In my initial post I was hoping for some discussion of Scripture rather than responses from sentiment and emotionalism as if we were in a testimony meeting listening to others sad tales. I'll not address those, but, some assertions were made on the Scriptures I used without any supporting logic so I wish to address those briefly. 

“... thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Ge 3:16) The American Std Vers. 1901 and the KJV are identical in this verse.

First I notice that the modern updates of these 2 versions, the NASB and NKJV have changed the preposition from "to" into a "for".  Prepositions in translation and interpretation are notoriously thorny issues and shaky upon which to base an interpretation.  See Acts 2:38, is baptism "for remission of sins"(KJV), or "to remission of sins"(YLT) or "unto remission of your sins"(ASV).  So, we need to broaden our evaluation of the context for the meaning since it may be the modern versions are influenced by our feminist culture.  It is poor practice to seek a translation that supports an already held belief rather than seeking the honest translation and interpretation which may challenge our preconception.

Nonsense.

Genesis 3:16
UntoH413 the womanH802 he said,H559 I will greatlyH7235 multiplyH7235 thy sorrowH6093 and thy conception;H2032 in sorrowH6089 thou shalt bring forthH3205 children;H1121 and thy desireH8669 shall be toH413 thy husband,H376 and heH1931 shall ruleH4910 over thee.



H413
אל   אל
'êl  'el
ale, el
(Used only in the shortened constructive form (the second form)); a primitive particle, properly denoting motion towards, but occasionally used of a quiescent position, that is, near, with or among; often in general, to: - about, according to, after, against, among, as for, at, because (-fore, -side), both . . . and, by, concerning, for, from, X hath, in (-to), near, (out) of, over, through,to (-ward), under, unto, upon, whether, with(-in).



Offline Glenn63

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
  • Manna: 1
  • Gender: Male
  • 1646 Conf. Baptist, New Cov. Theol., Prt.Preterist
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #9 on: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 13:16:48 »
To Lively Stone:  the quote you took from my reply was my response to Chosenone where she emphasized that the word "for" seemed to contradict what I had stated in the initial post. Chosenone wrote:  "The verses that you quote from Genesis is about womens desire being FOR her husband".  Chosenone makes a point about the preposition "for" used here by capitalizing it.  Translations are influenced by the culture of their time and it is true, most modern versions render as "for" instead of "to" or "toward".

But, 2 modern versions make clear the meaning here:

3:16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your labor pains;
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,
but he will dominate you.”
(This is from the NetBible found at:   http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm

“Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”” (Ge 3:16 New Living Translation)

There is an interesting comment found in a 1925 Lutheran commentary on Gen. 3:16:  "The matter is not one for emancipated women to argue, since the headship of the husband is hereby established until the end of time."   http://www.kretzmannproject.org/

Offline FireSword

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
  • Manna: 41
  • Gender: Male
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #10 on: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 14:08:30 »
Quote
With regards to women leading men astray sexually???  RUBBISH?
Yes, EVE ate the fruit first but she did NOT force Adam to eat it. HE CHOSE TO end of.
Why is the blame always put on the woman?  Men are not perverse themselves then?  I really beg to differ.
This is NOT a feminist view, it's a logical, truthful look at both sides of a very tarnished coin.
Men need to take responsibility for their own sexual urges etc and stop blaming women.


Rarely does society blame women, these days they are regarded like queens. I often wonder why woman are so arrogant these days, they used to be meek and considerate, now even the poorest and even older generation they all think their divas who deserve the most expensive things, dressed like prostitutes.comment deleted..



« Last Edit: Thu Feb 21, 2013 - 17:46:23 by chosenone »

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30109
  • Manna: 530
  • Gender: Female
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #11 on: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 14:12:23 »
To Lively Stone:  the quote you took from my reply was my response to Chosenone where she emphasized that the word "for" seemed to contradict what I had stated in the initial post. Chosenone wrote:  "The verses that you quote from Genesis is about womens desire being FOR her husband".  Chosenone makes a point about the preposition "for" used here by capitalizing it.  Translations are influenced by the culture of their time and it is true, most modern versions render as "for" instead of "to" or "toward".

But, 2 modern versions make clear the meaning here:

3:16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your labor pains;
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,
but he will dominate you.”
(This is from the NetBible found at:   http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm

“Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”” (Ge 3:16 New Living Translation)

There is an interesting comment found in a 1925 Lutheran commentary on Gen. 3:16:  "The matter is not one for emancipated women to argue, since the headship of the husband is hereby established until the end of time."   http://www.kretzmannproject.org/



Amplified
Your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30109
  • Manna: 530
  • Gender: Female
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #12 on: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 14:14:31 »
Quote
With regards to women leading men astray sexually???  RUBBISH?
Yes, EVE ate the fruit first but she did NOT force Adam to eat it. HE CHOSE TO end of.
Why is the blame always put on the woman?  Men are not perverse themselves then?  I really beg to differ.
This is NOT a feminist view, it's a logical, truthful look at both sides of a very tarnished coin.
Men need to take responsibility for their own sexual urges etc and stop blaming women.


Rarely does society blame women, these days they are regarded like queens. I often wonder why woman are so arrogant these days, they used to be meek and considerate, now even the poorest and even older generation they all think their divas who deserve the most expensive things, dressed like prostitutes, what they deserve is a slap.





You are mixing with the wrong people. I know countless lovely godly ladies.

Sadly there are arrogant people inboth sexes. Cant bear arrogance myself.

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30109
  • Manna: 530
  • Gender: Female
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #13 on: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 14:18:22 »
In my initial post I was hoping for some discussion of Scripture rather than responses from sentiment and emotionalism as if we were in a testimony meeting listening to others sad tales. I'll not address those, but, some assertions were made on the Scriptures I used without any supporting logic so I wish to address those briefly. 

“... thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Ge 3:16) The American Std Vers. 1901 and the KJV are identical in this verse.

First I notice that the modern updates of these 2 versions, the NASB and NKJV have changed the preposition from "to" into a "for".  Prepositions in translation and interpretation are notoriously thorny issues and shaky upon which to base an interpretation.  See Acts 2:38, is baptism "for remission of sins"(KJV), or "to remission of sins"(YLT) or "unto remission of your sins"(ASV).  So, we need to broaden our evaluation of the context for the meaning since it may be the modern versions are influenced by our feminist culture.  It is poor practice to seek a translation that supports an already held belief rather than seeking the honest translation and interpretation which may challenge our preconception.

Second, the exact phrasing in 3:16 about women, is used when speaking of the personification of sin in Gen. 4:7 and I place the phrases in parallel:

                                “... thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Ge 3:16)
"...sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.  (Ge 4:7)

Here we can see that sin does indeed wish to control and possess Cain, the man.  Therefore, the parallel construction used earlier by Moses would likely be the same meaning, woman wishes to control and be in possession of the man. Yes, that has continued down through history.

Third, the construction of "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee" is a parallel, a couplet where the second clause complements or answers the first clause.  Women wish to rule men (contrary to the creation, 1 Co. 11:9) so man will rule over the woman.  To assert that woman is to have passion, love and sexual desire for her husband does not match with the parallel nature of the sentence.

Fourth, woman in the created order would already have passion, love and sexual desire for the man which supports the command to populate the earth.  So, if we think 3:16 refers to an increase in this passion, love and sexual desire, what was woman to become, a nymphomaniac? (I hear the wisecracks from men married for over 10 years now!) 

Now as to the Romans passage:

“For this cause God gave them up unto vile passions: for their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another, men with men working unseemliness, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was due.” (Ro 1:26-27 ASV)

Chosenone, you wrote that Paul was referring to:   "men lying with men and women with women as in sexual passions and acts".  Sorry, I do not see a statement in that passage of "women with women".  In fact, I know of nowhere in Scripture that a sin of woman lying with woman is ever mentioned.  I've searched historical records online, and the idea of lesbianism in ancient Rome is hard to find in secular history, where male homosexuality is abundant in the records.  The question depends on what the connection of v27 is to v26 when it says "and likewise"?  Man to man sex can be anal, oral and that can be done with male to female, so that satisfied the "likewise" connection.  Yet, if there was lesbianism in ancient Rome, that can fit as well.  So, I wrote in my initial post:  "Women seem to have begun anal and oral intercourse with men and who knows what acts with other women..."  For Paul, the natural use and a use against nature would have been that which was contrary to the created order of procreation.  Are moderns fearful that this passage may prohibit oral/anal in the marriage bed and so wish to restrict this promiscuous context to only woman to woman sex?  I do not see that this passage would restrict the mutual sexual pleasures of man and wife in the marriage bed when the intent is other than reproduction.

I quoted the JFB commentary on how women lead men down the path to destruction and it was turned to a remark on men cheating more than women.  Well, whether that is true or not and it is illogical, it is beside the point of what God's word warns about in this area.  Thompson's Chain Reference Bible in 3880-3882 lists a great number of warnings against "temptresses":  Eve, Delilah, Jezebel, Zeresh, Job's wife, "strange women", Herodias and Salome.  The list then goes into warnings against harlots and the first listed I quote:

“So you will be delivered from the forbidden woman, from the adulteress with her smooth words, who forsakes the companion of her youth and forgets the covenant of her God; for her house sinks down to death, and her paths to the departed; none who go to her come back, nor do they regain the paths of life. So you will walk in the way of the good and keep to the paths of the righteous.” (Pr 2:16-20 ESV)

I try not to engage in prolonged debate, but I thought it necessary to give hermeneutic reasons for my opinions.   I either go by God's word which is truth, or I go by human feelings which may come from Satan himself!  Rational reasoning from Scripture is always profitable to us all and we continually learn and refine our understandings.  I'm 70 and still learning every day.  But, I do not gain anything by emotion based opinions.




Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."

  Sex is only ever to be between one man and one woman in marriage.
« Last Edit: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 14:24:15 by chosenone »

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30109
  • Manna: 530
  • Gender: Female
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #14 on: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 14:22:45 »
Chosenone, that's good to hear!!  I don't have any Christian friends so I just go by instinct and Gods word!! Lol.
I think in the day to day running of the home, I'm in charge because my husband prefers it that way, On things like shopping etc. and I always sort the bills etc out as he isn't a confident person really and gets easily flustered bless him.
But on important things I let him lead and follow what he thinks.
It wasn't always this way. I've been through everything with men,violence,abuse...  So it was really difficult for me to hand the reigns to my husband but with the lords help I've mostly got there!!
Also I think that a lot of men look at wife as a sort of surrogate mother figure sometimes. They are used to their mothers doing everything for them and can sometimes lean on their wives in the wrong way at times.
I'm very old fashioned, I go along with the man should be the hunter gatherer sort of thing and the women's role is to raise their children etc, the more gentle role, if that makes sense?

My husband isn't a Christian which obviously poses problems.  He sees nothing wrong with porn etc... He txt me the other day and asked if I want a copy of that fifty shades of grey book!!!  My reply was ummmmmmm, NO!!!  Jesus said that if you lust in your heart you have still committed adultery.  I'm not perfect by a long chalk but I can try to improve!!!  :)



 None of us are perfect mog, but you are doing well. My first husband wasnt a Christian, (neither was I when we married) and I know its hard. It must be really painful if he looks at porn.

Each husband and wife are different and have different strengths and weakness dont they, so each couple needs to work out what things they do best and come to an agreement on what suits them in their marriage.

Offline FireSword

  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 2738
  • Manna: 41
  • Gender: Male
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #15 on: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 14:24:01 »
Quote
You are mixing with the wrong people. I know countless lovely godly ladies.

Sadly there are arrogant people inboth sexes. Cant bear arrogance myself.

Thank you chosenone.  Yes arrogance runs in both.  ::tippinghat::




Offline Glenn63

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
  • Manna: 1
  • Gender: Male
  • 1646 Conf. Baptist, New Cov. Theol., Prt.Preterist
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #16 on: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 15:22:21 »
To Firesword:
    You will notice that head-strong women when defending feminism rarely use the word of God, or if they do they do not understand it.  It is all emotionalism and humanistic reasoning apart from Scripture.  I find the 19th century comment by Adam Clarke the Methodist commentator to be on point:

“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1Ti 2:14 AV)
    and now Adam Clarke's comments:

"Verse 14. Adam was not deceived It does not appear that Satan attempted the man; the woman said: The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. Adam received the fruit from the hand of his wife; he knew he was transgressing, he was not deceived; however, she led the way, and in consequence of this she was subjected to the domination of her husband: Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee; {#Ge 3:16}. There is a Greek verse, but it is not English law, that speaks a language nearly similar to that above: — 

γυναικι δ αρχειν ου διδωσιν η φυσις.

'For nature suffers not a woman’s rule.'

God has not only rendered her unfit for it, but he has subjected her, expressly, to the government of the man."

I feel the fire-breathing wrath of the feminists now!   rofl

Offline chosenone

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 30109
  • Manna: 530
  • Gender: Female
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #17 on: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 16:13:02 »
To Firesword:
    You will notice that head-strong women when defending feminism rarely use the word of God, or if they do they do not understand it.  It is all emotionalism and humanistic reasoning apart from Scripture.  I find the 19th century comment by Adam Clarke the Methodist commentator to be on point:

“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1Ti 2:14 AV)
    and now Adam Clarke's comments:

"Verse 14. Adam was not deceived It does not appear that Satan attempted the man; the woman said: The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. Adam received the fruit from the hand of his wife; he knew he was transgressing, he was not deceived; however, she led the way, and in consequence of this she was subjected to the domination of her husband: Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee; {#Ge 3:16}. There is a Greek verse, but it is not English law, that speaks a language nearly similar to that above: — 

γυναικι δ αρχειν ου διδωσιν η φυσις.

'For nature suffers not a woman’s rule.'

God has not only rendered her unfit for it, but he has subjected her, expressly, to the government of the man."

I feel the fire-breathing wrath of the feminists now!   rofl
 

You do realise that this happened because of the fall dont you, and wasnt what Gods desire is for a man and a woman? Being a godly man and a good head of the family, has nothing to do with ruling over anyone.
Jesus came to restore all that was lost in the fall, including a right relationship with men and women, him leading and loving his wife as Christ does His church, and her respecting her husband. No commands for the man to rule anyone.

Offline Cally

  • I am Christian. The rest is details.
  • Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 4488
  • Manna: 152
  • Gender: Male
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #18 on: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 16:35:24 »
To Firesword:
    You will notice that head-strong women when defending feminism rarely use the word of God, or if they do they do not understand it. 

They can't. Feminism alleges that women were oppressed throughout the entire course of human history, in which case that means God failed to rebuke Israel for a ubiquitous sin committed across thousands of years while not failing to get after them for everything from divorces to failing to tithe.

Feminists, therefore, would condemn all the patriarchs whom God explicitly approved. It's disgraceful that believers would buy into that for a second. Feminists would become a NEW judge, of higher authority than God himself to condemn such men whom God approved.

But the men's rights movement has a compelling reply. "Traditionally," men have been doing back-breaking jobs--the kinds that take YEARS off of a person's life--going to war for women, yet lo and behold, they were "oppressors" all along. Oh really? Maybe it's men who were oppressed, if they have traditionally been literally killing themselves out of love for their wives, and after women are no longer expected for traditional feminine roles, why should men be expected to fulfill traditional masculine roles? I would argue that one without the other IS oppression, and that's what feminism wants to do: oppress men.
« Last Edit: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 16:43:12 by Cally »

Offline Glenn63

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 173
  • Manna: 1
  • Gender: Male
  • 1646 Conf. Baptist, New Cov. Theol., Prt.Preterist
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #19 on: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 17:33:46 »
This has been fun, but I must move on.  Yet, I realize in our humanistic culture, man never has the last word, woman does!   ::giggle::

“Mortals make elaborate plans, but GOD has the last word.” (Pr 16:1 Message)


Lively Stone

  • Guest
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #20 on: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 19:26:56 »
To Lively Stone:  the quote you took from my reply was my response to Chosenone where she emphasized that the word "for" seemed to contradict what I had stated in the initial post. Chosenone wrote:  "The verses that you quote from Genesis is about womens desire being FOR her husband".  Chosenone makes a point about the preposition "for" used here by capitalizing it.  Translations are influenced by the culture of their time and it is true, most modern versions render as "for" instead of "to" or "toward".

But, 2 modern versions make clear the meaning here:

3:16 To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your labor pains;
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,
but he will dominate you.”
(This is from the NetBible found at:   http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm

“Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”” (Ge 3:16 New Living Translation)

There is an interesting comment found in a 1925 Lutheran commentary on Gen. 3:16:  "The matter is not one for emancipated women to argue, since the headship of the husband is hereby established until the end of time."   http://www.kretzmannproject.org/


They are legitimate translations, yet they are in the minority of other legitimate translations. Either way, God says that woman will focus their desire on the man, for whatever reason, whether to influence or control or for his equal companionship, but the disappointment will always be that he will rule over her. Both male and female positions are the result of the fall and are consequences we all must bear. The rulership thing is not the godly position, either.
« Last Edit: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 22:55:41 by Lively Stone »

Lively Stone

  • Guest
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #21 on: Mon Feb 18, 2013 - 19:28:56 »
This has been fun, but I must move on.  Yet, I realize in our humanistic culture, man never has the last word, woman does!   ::giggle::

“Mortals make elaborate plans, but GOD has the last word.” (Pr 16:1 Message)



Believe it.

Lively Stone

  • Guest
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #22 on: Wed Feb 20, 2013 - 15:43:54 »
Yes God made man first and the bible says a man shall rule over his wife but again I say that this does not give men the right to abuse women in any way.

Please get it straight that this was not a decree made by God. It was a declaration of the consequence of the fall. Jesus has turned it around.


Offline Wycliffes_Shillelagh

  • Down with pants! Up with kilts!
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12192
  • Manna: 350
  • Gender: Male
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #23 on: Wed Feb 20, 2013 - 15:53:40 »
I've stripped most of the rude comments from the last page out of this thread and dumpstered them.

Jarrod

jjeanniton

  • Guest
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #24 on: Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 08:13:46 »
To Firesword:
    You will notice that head-strong women when defending feminism rarely use the word of God, or if they do they do not understand it.  It is all emotionalism and humanistic reasoning apart from Scripture.  I find the 19th century comment by Adam Clarke the Methodist commentator to be on point:

“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.” (1Ti 2:14 AV)
    and now Adam Clarke's comments:

"Verse 14. Adam was not deceived It does not appear that Satan attempted the man; the woman said: The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. Adam received the fruit from the hand of his wife; he knew he was transgressing, he was not deceived; however, she led the way, and in consequence of this she was subjected to the domination of her husband: Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee; {#Ge 3:16}. There is a Greek verse, but it is not English law, that speaks a language nearly similar to that above: — 

γυναικι δ αρχειν ου διδωσιν η φυσις.

'For nature suffers not a woman’s rule.'

God has not only rendered her unfit for it, but he has subjected her, expressly, to the government of the man."

I feel the fire-breathing wrath of the feminists now!   rofl


There is something you ought to know. Both "MeMyself" and "NorrinRadd" have PROVEN themselves to be feminists and leftists despite all their indignant DENIALS of the fact! Here is the evidence:

....TRANSCRIPT....

 Re: Nashville Statement
« Reply #5 on: Today at 02:17:02 »

    Reply
    Quote

Quote from: jjeanniton on Yesterday at 22:10:51

    With all due respect to my Feminist friends, I indignantly DENY that Complementarianism and Patriarchy are IDENTICAL!



It depends on who is doing the defining.  I've checked five dictionaries so far -- WordWeb, Wiktionary, Oxford, American Heritage, and Merriam-Webster.  All concur:  The sum and substance of "Patriarchy" is "Rule of the family by the father or other eldest male" and "Rule of society by males."

Some forms of Complementarianism are relatively "hard," others "soft," but all hold that the ultimate authority in the home or in the local church must be male.  Some chafe at the fact that such can no longer be imposed in society as a whole.

Quote

    Please read https://biblicalgenderroles.com/tag/polygyny/, https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2014/06/05/why-polygamy-is-not-unbiblical-part-1/, http://biblicalgenderroles.com/2014/08/21/the-biological-case-for-polygyny-and-marriage-of-young-women, for more testimony from the Patriarchalists THEMSELVES! It illustrates the ACTUAL tendency of True Patriarchy.



No thanks.  Not interested in reading about polygamy/polygyny when the clear norm has always been "one man, one woman."

Quote

    In fact, I have found a CRUCIAL difference between True Patriarchy and Complementarianism. An Egalitarian / Feminist author writes:

    http://www.godswordtowomen.org/Patriarchy_or_gender_equality.pdf:



"Egalitarian" and "Feminist" are not identical, as another of your citations shows.

That said, there is some interesting material in there.  More recently, the suddenly-popular-and-controversial agnostic clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson has made similar points in challenging all the silly "Down with the Patriarchy" stuff coming from Progressives in the era of "Me Too."

Quote

    https://theothoughts.com/2012/08/18/patriarchy-the-third-option-in-the-compegal-debate/:



It's an interesting read.  I do believe the author is a bit imprecise in her characterization of "Egalitarianism" as "Non-hierarchical/non-authoritarian; mutual authority and submission; roles complementary; male-female cooperation," to wit:  Most Egalitarians would specify that the "roles" are not such that some are reserved to men only, some to women only; most would also say that in any given situation, men and women are free to decide among themselves which persons are in "authority," so to speak, based on their individual gifts.

I was unable to locate the second passage you quoted -- the one beginning with "I hold to the position..." -- in order to observe the larger context.

Quote

    Go and read it for yourselves with caution. The true Biblical position is that all offices of ecclesiastical jurisdiction are reserved for adult males only.



Yeah, yeah, heard it, read it, got the T-shirt.  *eye roll*  This has been batted around many times, and no doubt will be batted around many more.  There are at least two relatively recently active discussions on the topic.

Quote

    (But this in my mind, raises some questions about whether or not it is lawful ...



Speaking as politely as I can manage, wondering what is "lawful" is a stupid perspective for a New Covenant believer.

Quote

    ...
    for women to serve as mixed choir directors in the Church - never mind about so-called LEADERS of the congregational song as opposed to a quartette choir which leads congregation sing not by haranguing or addressing the assembly but by singing the parts the congregation is to sing usually in 4-part harmony.) And not just because the Church is an arithmetical aggregate of families rather than individuals (with families being the irreducible and elementary unit of the church): but because the Church is the only other divine institution UNIQUELY patterned after the human family.

    And here is another important difference.

    John Calvin remarked that before the fall, the subjection of Eve to Adam was a liberal and gentle subjection. But after the fall, it was a servile subjection. One of the important differences between True Patriarchy and Complementarianism is that Patriarchy tends to emphasize the SERVILE subjection of the female sex to the male sex and not just merely a liberal and gentle subjection. Patriarchy is EXACTLY what Complementarianism had been TRANSFORMED into only BECAUSE of the Fall and only BECAUSE of the debt of penal servitude the woman incurred for her part in the Fall. It is not just (but on the contrary, uncharitable and unmerciful) to exact payment TWICE for the SAME crime. Such "patriarchy" (which I have differentiated from Complementarianism) was NEVER God's ORIGINAL pre-Fall plan for the sexes.



Egalitarians see Scripture teaching that there was no hierarchy, benevolent or otherwise, prior to the Fall.

Quote

    In the future, if God wills it, I will address another case of conscience: Whether or not it is lawful de jure divino for a professedly Christian nation to allow women to vote and/or hold public office at the civil and political level.



Thank God we are not and never have been a "de jure" Christian nation.  If we were, it would be way too easy for some legalistic patriarchal nut to impose his interpretation of "Christianity."

....END TRANSCRIPT....

I have yet another case of conscience for you. Mary Astell in 1711 said:

Quote
’Tis true, thro’ Want of Learning, and of that Superior Genius which Men as men lay claim to, she was ignorant of the Natural Inferiority of our Sex, which our Masters lay down as a Self-Evident and Fundamental Truth. She was nothing in the Reason of Things, to make this either a Principle or a Conclusion, but much to the contrary; it being Sedition at least, if not Treason to assert it in the Reign. For if by the Natural Superiority of their Sex, they mean that every Man is by Nature superior to every Woman, which is the obvious meaning, and that which must be stuck to if they would speak Sense, it wou’d be a Sin in any Woman to have Dominion over any Man, and the greatest Queen ought not to command but to obey her Footman, because no Municipal Laws can supersede or change the Law of Nature; so that if the Dominion of the Men be such, the Salique Law, as unjust as English Men have ever thought it, ought to take place [iv] over all the Earth, and the most glorious Reigns in the English, Danish, Castilian, and other Annals, were wicked Violations of the Law of Nature!
(Note: a footman is a male household menial servant ranking below a Butler)

Would what Adam Clarke said about how women are unfit to rule also condemn women employing male butlers and footmen serving as domestic staff?

Online 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7238
  • Manna: 219
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #25 on: Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 08:35:30 »
What is a feminist?  Clearly a misandrist.

jjeanniton

  • Guest
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #26 on: Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 09:13:13 »
What is a feminist?  Clearly a misandrist.


There is something you ought to know. Both "MeMyself" and "NorrinRadd" have PROVEN themselves to be feminists and leftists despite all their indignant DENIALS of the fact! Here is the evidence:

....TRANSCRIPT....

 Re: Nashville Statement
« Reply #5 on: Today at 02:17:02 »

    Reply
    Quote

Quote from: jjeanniton on Yesterday at 22:10:51

    With all due respect to my Feminist friends, I indignantly DENY that Complementarianism and Patriarchy are IDENTICAL!



It depends on who is doing the defining.  I've checked five dictionaries so far -- WordWeb, Wiktionary, Oxford, American Heritage, and Merriam-Webster.  All concur:  The sum and substance of "Patriarchy" is "Rule of the family by the father or other eldest male" and "Rule of society by males."

Some forms of Complementarianism are relatively "hard," others "soft," but all hold that the ultimate authority in the home or in the local church must be male.  Some chafe at the fact that such can no longer be imposed in society as a whole.

Quote

    Please read https://biblicalgenderroles.com/tag/polygyny/, https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2014/06/05/why-polygamy-is-not-unbiblical-part-1/, http://biblicalgenderroles.com/2014/08/21/the-biological-case-for-polygyny-and-marriage-of-young-women, for more testimony from the Patriarchalists THEMSELVES! It illustrates the ACTUAL tendency of True Patriarchy.



No thanks.  Not interested in reading about polygamy/polygyny when the clear norm has always been "one man, one woman."

Quote

    In fact, I have found a CRUCIAL difference between True Patriarchy and Complementarianism. An Egalitarian / Feminist author writes:

    http://www.godswordtowomen.org/Patriarchy_or_gender_equality.pdf:



"Egalitarian" and "Feminist" are not identical, as another of your citations shows.

That said, there is some interesting material in there.  More recently, the suddenly-popular-and-controversial agnostic clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson has made similar points in challenging all the silly "Down with the Patriarchy" stuff coming from Progressives in the era of "Me Too."

Quote

    https://theothoughts.com/2012/08/18/patriarchy-the-third-option-in-the-compegal-debate/:



It's an interesting read.  I do believe the author is a bit imprecise in her characterization of "Egalitarianism" as "Non-hierarchical/non-authoritarian; mutual authority and submission; roles complementary; male-female cooperation," to wit:  Most Egalitarians would specify that the "roles" are not such that some are reserved to men only, some to women only; most would also say that in any given situation, men and women are free to decide among themselves which persons are in "authority," so to speak, based on their individual gifts.

I was unable to locate the second passage you quoted -- the one beginning with "I hold to the position..." -- in order to observe the larger context.

Quote

    Go and read it for yourselves with caution. The true Biblical position is that all offices of ecclesiastical jurisdiction are reserved for adult males only.



Yeah, yeah, heard it, read it, got the T-shirt.  *eye roll*  This has been batted around many times, and no doubt will be batted around many more.  There are at least two relatively recently active discussions on the topic.

Quote

    (But this in my mind, raises some questions about whether or not it is lawful ...



Speaking as politely as I can manage, wondering what is "lawful" is a stupid perspective for a New Covenant believer.

Quote

    ...
    for women to serve as mixed choir directors in the Church - never mind about so-called LEADERS of the congregational song as opposed to a quartette choir which leads congregation sing not by haranguing or addressing the assembly but by singing the parts the congregation is to sing usually in 4-part harmony.) And not just because the Church is an arithmetical aggregate of families rather than individuals (with families being the irreducible and elementary unit of the church): but because the Church is the only other divine institution UNIQUELY patterned after the human family.

    And here is another important difference.

    John Calvin remarked that before the fall, the subjection of Eve to Adam was a liberal and gentle subjection. But after the fall, it was a servile subjection. One of the important differences between True Patriarchy and Complementarianism is that Patriarchy tends to emphasize the SERVILE subjection of the female sex to the male sex and not just merely a liberal and gentle subjection. Patriarchy is EXACTLY what Complementarianism had been TRANSFORMED into only BECAUSE of the Fall and only BECAUSE of the debt of penal servitude the woman incurred for her part in the Fall. It is not just (but on the contrary, uncharitable and unmerciful) to exact payment TWICE for the SAME crime. Such "patriarchy" (which I have differentiated from Complementarianism) was NEVER God's ORIGINAL pre-Fall plan for the sexes.



Egalitarians see Scripture teaching that there was no hierarchy, benevolent or otherwise, prior to the Fall.

Quote

    In the future, if God wills it, I will address another case of conscience: Whether or not it is lawful de jure divino for a professedly Christian nation to allow women to vote and/or hold public office at the civil and political level.



Thank God we are not and never have been a "de jure" Christian nation.  If we were, it would be way too easy for some legalistic patriarchal nut to impose his interpretation of "Christianity."

....END TRANSCRIPT....

Offline MeMyself

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15983
  • Manna: 382
  • Gender: Female
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #27 on: Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 16:17:41 »
There is something you ought to know. Both "MeMyself" and "NorrinRadd" have PROVEN themselves to be feminists and leftists despite all their indignant DENIALS of the fact! Here is the evidence:


What is wrong with you? Seriously...this is absolutely the most childish thing I have *ever* seen.  Who is this "you" that "ought to know" and why do they need to know your opinions of myself and another poster? Are you *tattling*?!   ::shrug:: ::rollingeyes:: ::baby::

I am not a leftist, nor am I a feminist.  You are a slanderer and a liar.  What's worse?

Quote
....TRANSCRIPT....

 Re: Nashville Statement
« Reply #5 on: Today at 02:17:02 »

    Reply
    Quote

Quote from: jjeanniton on Yesterday at 22:10:51

    With all due respect to my Feminist friends, I indignantly DENY that Complementarianism and Patriarchy are IDENTICAL!



It depends on who is doing the defining.  I've checked five dictionaries so far -- WordWeb, Wiktionary, Oxford, American Heritage, and Merriam-Webster.  All concur:  The sum and substance of "Patriarchy" is "Rule of the family by the father or other eldest male" and "Rule of society by males."

Some forms of Complementarianism are relatively "hard," others "soft," but all hold that the ultimate authority in the home or in the local church must be male.  Some chafe at the fact that such can no longer be imposed in society as a whole.

Quote

    Please read https://biblicalgenderroles.com/tag/polygyny/, https://biblicalgenderroles.com/2014/06/05/why-polygamy-is-not-unbiblical-part-1/, http://biblicalgenderroles.com/2014/08/21/the-biological-case-for-polygyny-and-marriage-of-young-women, for more testimony from the Patriarchalists THEMSELVES! It illustrates the ACTUAL tendency of True Patriarchy.



No thanks.  Not interested in reading about polygamy/polygyny when the clear norm has always been "one man, one woman."

Quote

    In fact, I have found a CRUCIAL difference between True Patriarchy and Complementarianism. An Egalitarian / Feminist author writes:

    http://www.godswordtowomen.org/Patriarchy_or_gender_equality.pdf:



"Egalitarian" and "Feminist" are not identical, as another of your citations shows.

That said, there is some interesting material in there.  More recently, the suddenly-popular-and-controversial agnostic clinical psychologist Jordan Peterson has made similar points in challenging all the silly "Down with the Patriarchy" stuff coming from Progressives in the era of "Me Too."

Quote

    https://theothoughts.com/2012/08/18/patriarchy-the-third-option-in-the-compegal-debate/:



It's an interesting read.  I do believe the author is a bit imprecise in her characterization of "Egalitarianism" as "Non-hierarchical/non-authoritarian; mutual authority and submission; roles complementary; male-female cooperation," to wit:  Most Egalitarians would specify that the "roles" are not such that some are reserved to men only, some to women only; most would also say that in any given situation, men and women are free to decide among themselves which persons are in "authority," so to speak, based on their individual gifts.

I was unable to locate the second passage you quoted -- the one beginning with "I hold to the position..." -- in order to observe the larger context.

Quote

    Go and read it for yourselves with caution. The true Biblical position is that all offices of ecclesiastical jurisdiction are reserved for adult males only.



Yeah, yeah, heard it, read it, got the T-shirt.  *eye roll*  This has been batted around many times, and no doubt will be batted around many more.  There are at least two relatively recently active discussions on the topic.

Quote

    (But this in my mind, raises some questions about whether or not it is lawful ...



Speaking as politely as I can manage, wondering what is "lawful" is a stupid perspective for a New Covenant believer.

Quote

    ...
    for women to serve as mixed choir directors in the Church - never mind about so-called LEADERS of the congregational song as opposed to a quartette choir which leads congregation sing not by haranguing or addressing the assembly but by singing the parts the congregation is to sing usually in 4-part harmony.) And not just because the Church is an arithmetical aggregate of families rather than individuals (with families being the irreducible and elementary unit of the church): but because the Church is the only other divine institution UNIQUELY patterned after the human family.

    And here is another important difference.

    John Calvin remarked that before the fall, the subjection of Eve to Adam was a liberal and gentle subjection. But after the fall, it was a servile subjection. One of the important differences between True Patriarchy and Complementarianism is that Patriarchy tends to emphasize the SERVILE subjection of the female sex to the male sex and not just merely a liberal and gentle subjection. Patriarchy is EXACTLY what Complementarianism had been TRANSFORMED into only BECAUSE of the Fall and only BECAUSE of the debt of penal servitude the woman incurred for her part in the Fall. It is not just (but on the contrary, uncharitable and unmerciful) to exact payment TWICE for the SAME crime. Such "patriarchy" (which I have differentiated from Complementarianism) was NEVER God's ORIGINAL pre-Fall plan for the sexes.



Egalitarians see Scripture teaching that there was no hierarchy, benevolent or otherwise, prior to the Fall.

Quote

    In the future, if God wills it, I will address another case of conscience: Whether or not it is lawful de jure divino for a professedly Christian nation to allow women to vote and/or hold public office at the civil and political level.



Thank God we are not and never have been a "de jure" Christian nation.  If we were, it would be way too easy for some legalistic patriarchal nut to impose his interpretation of "Christianity."

....END TRANSCRIPT....

I have yet another case of conscience for you. Mary Astell in 1711 said:
 (Note: a footman is a male household menial servant ranking below a Butler)

Would what Adam Clarke said about how women are unfit to rule also condemn women employing male butlers and footmen serving as domestic staff?


 ::juggle::

jjeanniton

  • Guest
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #28 on: Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 17:05:34 »
What is wrong with you? Seriously...this is absolutely the most childish thing I have *ever* seen.  Who is this "you" that "ought to know" and why do they need to know your opinions of myself and another poster? Are you *tattling*?!   ::shrug:: ::rollingeyes:: ::baby::

I am not a leftist, nor am I a feminist.  You are a slanderer and a liar.  What's worse?

 ::juggle::

For your information, I was waiting for a reply from 4WD. According to the Dictionary, "Definition of feminism. 1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" IN FUNCTION as well as IN BEING. But that is precisely the definition of EGALITARIANISM. Therefore ALL egalitarianism, including YOUR brand of Egalitarianism, IS feminism: for it is precisely the application of FEMINISM to the very points on which you happen to be egalitarian instead of complementarian or patriarchalist! I know that your brand of egalitarianism ISN'T radical feminism, but to deny that your brand of egalitarianism IS feminism is to commit the Fallacy of Illicit Major!

Major Premise: All Radical Feminism and/or Misandry is Feminism.
Minor Premise: But NO egalitarianism of your sort is Radical Feminism and/or Misandry.
Conclusion: Ergo: NO egalitarianism of your sort is Feminism.

This syllogism is FALLACIOUS! Every Papist (i.e. so-called Roman Catholic) KNOWS that ALL Lutherans are Protestants, but NO Presbyterian is a Lutheran. Does it therefore follow that NO Presbyterian is a Protestant???  rofl

When I called you a Leftist, I meant to emphasize the fact that you agree with the Leftists on PRECISELY the points on which you happen to be egalitarian instead of complementarian or patriarchalist.
« Last Edit: Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 17:35:34 by jjeanniton »

Offline MeMyself

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15983
  • Manna: 382
  • Gender: Female
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #29 on: Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 17:09:16 »
For your information, I was waiting for a reply from 4WD.

For your information, you lie...again.

You posted in this thread to a poster named Glen63 in response to a post he made in 2013 and that is the post I quoted.
You *then* replied to 4WD and reposted the same drivel an hour later.

I hadn't even posted on this thread before you brought my name up to slander me.  Its hateful, its childish and out of line. Grow up.

jjeanniton

  • Guest
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #30 on: Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 17:39:18 »
For your information, you lie...again.

You posted in this thread to a poster named Glen63 in response to a post he made in 2013 and that is the post I quoted.
You *then* replied to 4WD and reposted the same drivel an hour later.

I hadn't even posted on this thread before you brought my name up to slander me.  Its hateful, its childish and out of line. Grow up.

But notice what I added later: According to the Dictionary, "Definition of feminism. 1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" IN FUNCTION as well as IN BEING. But this is precisely the definition of EGALITARIANISM. Therefore ALL egalitarianism, including YOUR brand of Egalitarianism, IS feminism: for it is precisely the application of FEMINISM to the very points (MOST NOTORIOUSLY IN THE HOME AND IN THE CHURCH!!!!) on which you happen to be egalitarian instead of complementarian or patriarchalist! And yet you say that this is a slander?

When I called you a Leftist, I meant to emphasize the fact that you agree with the Leftists on PRECISELY the points on which you happen to be egalitarian instead of complementarian or patriarchalist. And yet you say that this is a slander?

And for your information, I am STILL waiting for the replies of both 4WD and Glenn63.
« Last Edit: Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 17:45:43 by jjeanniton »

Offline MeMyself

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15983
  • Manna: 382
  • Gender: Female
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #31 on: Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 18:19:31 »
But notice what I added later: According to the Dictionary, "Definition of feminism. 1: the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" IN FUNCTION as well as IN BEING. But this is precisely the definition of EGALITARIANISM. Therefore ALL egalitarianism, including YOUR brand of Egalitarianism, IS feminism: for it is precisely the application of FEMINISM to the very points (MOST NOTORIOUSLY IN THE HOME AND IN THE CHURCH!!!!) on which you happen to be egalitarian instead of complementarian or patriarchalist! And yet you say that this is a slander?

When I called you a Leftist, I meant to emphasize the fact that you agree with the Leftists on PRECISELY the points on which you happen to be egalitarian instead of complementarian or patriarchalist. And yet you say that this is a slander?

And for your information, I am STILL waiting for the replies of both 4WD and Glenn63.

There is NO reason to bring my name up in this thread. I hadn't participated in it at all. You try to bully, gossip and slandered me for NO reason.

And, yes, I call what you did slander. You don't know me, you just know I disagree with you about music styles in the church, so your panties got all twisted up and you are now spreading lies about me. But, shouldn't surprise me...the weakest among us stoop to the mentality of "can't control 'em, so I'll control what others think about them."

I agree that humans, regardless of gender, have equal value. I do not apologize for that. My husband leads my home and family beautifully. We are partners and we both see what the other brings to the table as gifts and blessings to be utilized and to glorify God.  HE has *zero* problem with how I submit to him, so butt out.
« Last Edit: Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 18:23:59 by MeMyself »

Online 4WD

  • Legendary Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7238
  • Manna: 219
  • (T)ogether (E)veryone (A)chieves (M)ore
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #32 on: Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 18:52:12 »
For your information, I was waiting for a reply from 4WD.
Feminists think the world would be a better place if men were weak and more effeminate.  What you get with weak and effeminate men is Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Parkland, etc.

Offline MeMyself

  • Lee's Inner Circle Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15983
  • Manna: 382
  • Gender: Female
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #33 on: Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 18:55:45 »
Feminists think the world would be a better place if men were weak and more effeminate.  What you get with weak and effeminate men is Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook, Parkland, etc.

And, for your information @jjeanniton, what 4WD says here does NOT describe how I view men at.all. So, kindly take back your slanderous posts about me.

I am a mother of two grown up sons, and I would sooner DIE than emasculate them or make them weak and small.  They are MEN, meant to BE men and I praise God for them!

jjeanniton

  • Guest
Re: Feminism: "the last day" approaching?
« Reply #34 on: Sun Jun 17, 2018 - 19:10:15 »
Let me ask you a simple question, "MeMyself". Do you believe in the "theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes", nay, and also the domestic and ecclesiastical equality of the sexes in FUNCTION (particularly in terms of roles of authority and jurisdiction) as well as in BEING?