those "easily deceived" women.....

Please give an example of an "erroneous conclusion" that Scarlett cited? And, BTW, just because you disagree with someone, doesn't make their opinion "irrelevant".

But, as Scarlett pointed out, scripture does not say women are "easily" deceived. The point made was that the added "easily" has been used by some men as an excuse to ignore women and worse. Is that an "erroneous conclusion"? Is that "irrelevant"?

The "weaker vessel" passage refers to physical strength, IMHO, not a greater tendency toward deception. Peter had just urged believing wives to remain faithful to God and to their unbelieving husbands.

I Pet. 3:7 "You husbands likewise, live with you wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman; and grant her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered."

What is true, and as Scarlett and others have pointed out, is that these types of verses are used by some men as an excuse for abuse. There is no focus on the "understanding" or the "honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life".

The focus is on "weaker vessel", and that phrased is defined in such a way as to justify wrong-headed attitudes toward, and mistreatment of, women.

That is the point that is being made, not that women should dress inappropriately or have authority over men, or that wives shouldn't be in subjection to their husbands.

peace to youraying:

 

I told my wife the other day that if it weren't for all her faults, she'd have found herself a better man. :smilewinkgrin:

All jesting aside, before the Fall, Adam was not tempted by the lust of the eyes.

 

Thanks, Amy. :type:

 

That being more easily deceived than the man means that women must be stupid.

Erroneous conclusions are irrelevant.

Irrelevant. A creep is born every minute.

Nope.

Yep.

Whether they are weaker or not, they're to assume that place. And not only are they to be guarded physically, but legally, emotionally and spiritually as well.

How does one live with a weaker vessel? It's the difference in the way one treats the cast iron skillet and the fine china.

And notice the command to understand women. :tonofbricks:

 

Are you referring to this?

2nd Corinthians 5:
6Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
7(For we walk by faith, not by sight)
8We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.

 

Actually, these two are in the Bible:

And

 

uhmmmm.....lots said. I guess 'nuff said ?

 

Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.

1 Thess. 4:7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

 

I, too, agree with Aaron. I think his delivery is what messes people up more than what he actually says.

Women have a lot of power. Let's not pretend we don't. A man is not powerless to resist, but it's pretty doggone difficult. And I think women like that power.

I feel sorry for men in a lot of ways. I live in Eastern Europe where the skirts are shorter than the high heels (slight exaggeration). It is a s*x saturated society. And when it's right in front of your face, it's difficult to "just look away". Of course men could wear blinders...

I also feel sorry for us women. I mean, we're bombarded by Hollywood's definition of beauty all day long. It's on TV. It's at the check-out counter. It's in the make-up aisle. All advertising tells us that if we only looked like this, wore this, smelled like this, our lives would be better and our men would be happier. And for some reason we buy into the lies of the Devil. Why? Because we KNOW men are drawn by it and we feel the need to do the same to compete with what is out there.

It's a gift from the devil in a nice, neat litte package of conformity. The world is alluring, no doubt about it.

The other thing is, in this day and age, women (including in the church) do NOT want to be told what to do. There is a spirit of rebellion in the church---a Vashti spirit, if you will---and Women's Lib has crept in.

All that said, I dress to please my husband. Any other man's opinion of my dress/modesty matters not.

And I don't mind being treated as fine china.

Just my .02

 

I know what she did and why. I was referring to the spirit.

To clarify: I am NOT saying Vashti was wrong. I was referring to the spirit on women today that we DO NOT HAVE TO do anything we don't want to do---it's our right. I could have just said that in the beginning without bringing Vashti into it. Just wanted to clarify.

 

I also know what the thread is and is not about. My post, however, encompasses a bunch of threads in one. Too many to post on these days...

 

Do you make you crazy that people falsely claim that it originated in Butler's Hudibras?


The proverb, a paraphrase of scripture, existed in English long before Samuel Butler quoted it in his late 1600s spoof of Puritanism.

Examples:

Richard Mulcaster, The First Part of The Elementaire Which Entreateth Chefelie of The right writing of our English tung (1582):

John Clarke, Paroemiologia Anglo-Latina in usum scholarum concinnata. Or proverbs English, and Latine, methodically disposed according to the common-place heads, in Erasmus his adages (1639):

Edward Symmons, Foure sermons vvherein is made a foure-fold discovery viz. of ecclesiasticall selfe-seeking, a wisemans carriage in evill times, the benefit of Christian patience, the right nature and temper of the spirit of the Gospel (1642):

 

Well, I've never heard it used that way. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is just another way of saying the verse in Proverbs. Undoubtedly, Butler (mis)used it for his own purposes - I doubt he came up with it on his own.

But it is from the Bible. I think Butler got if from there and then used it his own way.

 

I do think this is saying we will be in heaven when we die. It's similar to Phil 1:23:

I think it is totally reasonable to conclude from these verses that when we die, we are with the Lord. Do you think we believers are not with the Lord when we die?