Women in the workplace.

Nothing about that answer comes from the text therefore it does nothing to reconcile Proverbs 31 and Titus 2. Not trying to sound harsh but our stance whatever it is has to have a strong biblical backing or else we are simply being driven by emotions and agenda.

 

I'm not sure what you want to hear Shortandy. Nothing in Titus appears to exclude or contradict the Proverbs 31 passage.

If one is referring to the "keepers at home" bit, well just previously the same passage speaks of teaching! None of this is very specific.

So what are we left with? The guidance of the Holy Spirit and the tenet of Christain liberty. In other words: Its up to the couple!! And since Paul says that it is best to remain single.....well, I guess that means the single woman gets to decide for herself.

 

Women in the workforce having a detrimental impact????? Where would the United States be today without women in the workforce? I can't stand men who put women down! I think it is because they are insecure in their own manhood so they feel they have to denigrate and rule over women.

Stop living in the 19th century. Welcome to the 21st century, where men and women live free.

 

Just as I can't stand women who falsely accuse men of putting women down.

 

Aren't men supposed to home school the children?

In our culture, isn't that nearly impossible?

It means we all stay home.

How do we reconcile men who are supposed to be responsible for their kid's education with all the men who think women should stay home, then make homeschooling the responsibility of the mother, on TOP of all the duties they expect her to perform?
Women were basically turned into trained chimps, expected to perform and please everyone involved.
They protested for a reason...it was wrong, not only according to humans, but according to scriptural principles.

Now we live in a different time and a different culture, and Christian men still try to enforce ungodly rules, using the same Bible that, if translated into meaning women should only perform in the home, also means men should be the teachers of their children...not secular government officials. If that baby is done nursing, it's your turn to finish them up, right? Why are you putting that task on women? Aren't you forcing them to act like men when you do that?

 

Sure, good links. Authoritative links. Not kook links, nor those with a decidedly leftist, anti-Christian bent.

But I'll take what I can get and we'll deal with one at time, and focus on one point made therein at a time. If you have the stamina, by the time we've been through them, you'll see that you aren't basing your opinions on the Scriptures.

We'll take the first one, and the first point asserted was the idea of "inferiority." What does it mean to be inferior? In its true sense, it means to be under authority, or lower in position or rank.

There are inferior courts and superior courts, but an inferior court is not one that is of poor quality or of less inherent value.

John Knox's statement is absolutely true. Woman was taken from the man, and made for the man. She was made to obey and serve him. Of this there can be no biblical dispute.

 

Aaron, are you compensating as Shrek would say?

 

All I know is that Eve ate Adam out of house and home!!!! ROFL!

 

So...cradle to grave, women just have to pick a feller and obey him?

Not sure how you get that from "helpmate." ("completer" or "second self" concept--if God meant what you do, wouldn't He have said "slave?")

 

Thank you Aaron, I tried. There is a LOT of garbage out there. The best info on the subject of history's treatment of women as inferior and lower class (in the worst meaning of those words) and as inherently MORE sinful than man, is in books I've read over the years that I no longer have in my collection. So I took what I could get to easily.

I have plenty of stamina, but not a lot of time, so you'll have to be patient while I have like today will be. I'm on now, but likely won't be on until late this evening. But go ahead and start as you have time and maybe my day won't be as busy as I'm afraid it is going to be.

Actually as has already been stated, woman was made to complete man, to be a helpmeet. That means man was lacking something God thought he needed to be happy. Where do you get the idea that woman was originally created to serve and obey? Second question: Who is to serve who? I have my answer from scripture, but I have to go take kids to school, so YOU FIRST!

Tim. There is NO evidence that a house sat in the middle of the garden of Eden. She only ate him out of his home.

 

I still like the heart analogy the best here. I was a working Mom. I had been horribly abused and cheated on in my marriage, which I finally had the good sense to abandon, and I was forced to leave my stay-at-home
Mom position and work for the rest of the time that my children were at home. It was tough, but I did it. I raised those kids on my own.

My heart ached to be there when they got home from school. But I couldn't.

 

No, He said help. There is no help in defiance or self-will.

 

Let's keep to the wording and ideas that are presented in the account. Woman was created to make Adam's existence a good state of being. Adam did not lack a ruler, nor a teacher. He lacked companionship and the assistance required to do the job God gave him.

That's what it means to be a helper suitable for him. He didn't need character development, instruction or direction. He needed help to do a job, and he needed intelligent companionship of someone of his own nature.

That's right.

They serve one another, but the nature of the service is not the same. One who is in authority serves by leading, providing and protecting. Christ served His disciples, but He was their ruler.

One who is under authority serves by obedience and submission to the will and primary goals of the one who is in authority.

 

O.K. Next link.

I'm still on dial-up, so after 60 seconds of downloading and still no text, I gave up.

Next link.

In view is a society that believed in noble birth, or the divine right of one man to rule another by virtue of birth. They have a house of commons and a house of lords. They have a monarchy.

I'm not surprised that a society that has a limited apprehension of liberty and equality of men would also have unjust statutes concerning the weaker vessels.

There's really nothing here that needs a response.

And since I can't access the entire article, it's moot.

 

Next link:

I wasn't aware that it was a Christian belief that only women were inherently sinful. Are you saying they aren't?

 

Sorry, you don't get to change definitions of words in Scripture so it will mold into your theology. The other direction works better.

 

No, I'm saying they aren't any more sinful than men are which is the point of this discussion. Historically in most societies women are veiwed as lessor creatures because of their sinfulness and inherent lack of any ability to control themselves.

Not only is view not supported by scripture, but it is exceptionally comman around the world. Makes me wonder if the idea originated with Satan as he attempted to "bruise the heel" of woman.

He also needed someone with whom to procreate. However, where the text say that Eve needed character development, instruction or direction any more than Adam needed it?