Elevation of women in the church and in society

She tries to be!

 

Come back when you grow up. At 18 you have not the life experience to comment on marital relationships. Sorry. It is really sad for someone of your age to be so anti-female.

As for Milady, I am sure Dale treats you fine. But you will never be considered his equal, given the comments he has made here.

 

18 is old enough to vote, old enough to drive without a permit, old enough for military service and, until the fed gov't got involved, it was old enough to drink alcohol in many states. In my view 18 is a man or at least an age where a man should be a man (in previous generations it was earlier). It is apparent too that ChristianYouth is old enough to have read his Bible as he cited it quite well and elder Christians should defend his support of the word. If you are opposed to his comments it might be better to defend against the comments via scripture and a logical argument, rather than dwelling on how old he is.

I take issue too that you would "almost hope" the curse of a female president on this country, particularly one as antichrist as Hillary.

"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." - Isaiah 3:12​

Further, to suggest that men who are trying to restore Biblical balance to this country is akin to Saudi oppression is heinous. A Christian man would desire to treat the elder women as mothers and the younger as sisters with all purity, not beat them in the street, kill them when they've been raped, cover their heads or whatever else mixed up antichrist things they do in that desert. Some of us would desire that women (and men) start giving the Holy Bible a little attention and get off their New World Order feminist soapbox.

"Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.Honour widows that are widows indeed." - 1 Timothy 5:1-3​

For your reading pleasure...

• Gloria Steinem: How the CIA Used Feminism to Destabilize Society
• Feminist Gloria Steinem of the CIA: "Ms. Immanuel Goldstein" attracting/guiding dissent
• Gloria Steinem (Discovering the networks)
• Gloria Steinem: How the CIA Used Feminism to Destabilize Society

 

:laugh: Interesting...you poke a stick into a nest of woman haters and they come crawling out of the woodwork!

 

This judgemental spirit is shocking for anyone, even more so from a teenager.

You cannot call a person rebellious based on their comments and make a harsh statement like "I don't think Christianity is the right religion for you."

Its all about balance folks. The Bible says a wife must be a keeper at home, that is clear and there is no way around that. To fail in that role is sin.

Being in submission is not as clear. I don't think a woman needs permission to get a job and I think it is wrong for the husband to say, "She'll get a job if a I let her." It is obvious, CY, that you are not in the real world yet. Husbands love their wives as Christ loves the church. He loved the church so much that He freed it from bondage to the law. There is liberty in His love. Wives must submit to their husbands, no doubt about that. But is goes both ways. A woman would be a fool to go against her husbands express desire and take a job that he does not want her to take. A husband would be a fool not to listen in love and give wise consideration to her request. Then they come to an agreement. I have been married almost 30 years (Jan 21 1978). I thought I knew all about the home when I got married. My wife was going to submit to me bless God and I'd better not get any lip. I didn't know then how to love my wife. Christ' love for the church is not the "She'll get a job if I tell her she can have one" kind of love, but a love that sets me free to enjoy His love. I try to love my wife the same way. Do I fail, of course, but she has stuck with me for 30 years. We are one. We act and we function as one. Neither one of us goes against the others express wishes.

Yes, feminisation had hurt western society as women have forgotten how to wife and mother. But, if a woman can be a keeper at home and has worked out with he husband their respective roles in the Biblical boundaries than no one has a right to use words like "rebellious" or even "woman hater" based on their actions.

 

I know a lot of women stayed at home back in the 50's but my mother worked in the 50's, 60's and so on. About 30 to 40% of my friends mothers work as well. Why? My mother and father didn't want to live at a scale where my father's money could get us through. In other words they lived as so many do today, above their income, where the other families who didn't do as they did live under their income. Did we have a larger house, a new car, and so on, NO! From the time of about 9 or 10 I was to buy my school clothes and school stuff as most of the other children did back then. What did they do with the money, put it in the bank and in investments, so when they were old they could take care of themselves. It works well, for my mother she lived for 93 years, not as well for dad he lived for 61 years.

So this story about all the women staying at home a few years ago, isn't the way it was in the 40's and 50's in the world that I lived in.

How could we get back to a day when we could have the women stay at home? Well my wife, daughter and daughter in law all stayed at home or stayed at home until the children were raised. How? Manage what money that is made and live under your income. But to many today and yesterday didn't want to do it.

I will give BaptistBeliver credit, that most of the women in the Baptist churches where I was rased stayed at home ( I would say about 75 to 80% of them), and I would say of the Methodist around us about 50% of them stayed at home and of the Presbyterians (which we were at that time) about 10 to 20% stayed at home. As my dad use to say, the bigger the house and the newer the car the more wives worked.

 

So you are in Ireland. Your wife wants to get a job in Seattle.
She can just move there and she doesn't need your permission.
is that what you are saying?

 

Come in Dale - read the whole post. I explained exactly what I meant.

 

The statement above speaks volumes about one's attitude toward women. A female president is neither unbiblical nor a curse. A female is perfectly capable. If a woman's place is in the house it is also in the White House. The constitution lays out the requirements to be President, and gender is not one of them. Not only calling a female President a curse, but calling Senator Clinton "antichrist" is way over the top.

 

"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." - Isaiah 3:12​

It's not about capable or incapable, it's about a person taking on a role that is outside of a Biblical model and about a people encouraging or following this action.

Certainly, it is...as first lady, not as commander in chief being a help meet to her husband.

"I have only one real hobby - my husband." - Florence Harding​

Apparently,the founders lacked the vision to recognize how far our society would degrade as some things were self-evident.

Here's a list of females who signed the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution of the United States:

• *

There's a myriad of reasons why I believe Senator Clinton to be an antichrist. However to pick on one issue...In my world view, any individual that is so reprobate as to care not for the lives of children and endorses their murder, has the spirit of antichrist. I don't see how one can be pro-murder and be pro-Jesus Christ but perhaps you might give me your view on how these two can be reconciled.

• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
  
• Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
  
• Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
  
• Rated 100% by NARAL, indicating a pro-choice voting record. (Dec 2003)
  
• "I am and always have been pro-choice, and that is not a right any of should take for granted. There are a number of forces at work in our society that would try to turn back the clock and undermine a woman’s right to chose, and [we] must remain vigilant." - Hillary Clinton (Source: http://www.ontheissues.org)

 

What total nonsense! Dragging out a verse re: enemies of ancient Israelites has no bearing on the USA. Even modern Israel had Golda Meir as PM. The rest of your comments are just more of you hanging yourself with your own words.

 

Alrighty. Please give me a list of the books of the Bible that you believe apply to you and I'll try to quote from those.

Even historic Israel didn't always follow the God of the Bible...doesn't make it right.

Could you be more specific please? Besides being a feminist are you an abortionist as well are these the rest of the comments I'm hanging myself on?

 

No, how about you study to learn historic context.

I see from you above words the wisdom of the proverb, "Never wrestle with a pig. You just get dirty, and the pig enjoys it."

Rufus, you have made some wise statements on some other threads, but you are really off base on this one. There is no "curse" in having a female President. You keep this up, and you'll have me out campaigning for Hillary for sure! :laugh: She sure couldn't screw it up any worse than the current male occupying the office. In fact, she'd be a breath of fresh air. She is not my first choice, but if she gets the nomination, I will be voting for her.

 

I think the problem is the phrase "need permission" in the context of a discussion of women, which really has nothing to do with moving across the country. Clearly it's important for a husband and wife to take counsel in each other and jointly consider important decisions, but this duty is no more incumbent upon a wife than on her husband. If you phrased it more in terms of "acting as one flesh", I think you'd find a much greater consensus.

 

I was surprised to find that the percentage of women that worked was as high in 1950 as it was.

What Percentage of Women Work?

"In 1950 about one in three women participated in the labor force. By 1998, nearly three of every five women of working age were in the labor force. Among women age 16 and over, the labor force participation rate was 33.9 percent in 1950, compared with 59.8 percent in 1998.

63.3 percent of women age 16 to 24 worked in 1998 versus 43.9 percent in 1950.
76.3 percent of women age 25 to 34 worked in 1998 versus 34.0 percent in 1950.
77.1 percent of women age 35 to 44 worked in 1998 versus 39.1 percent in 1950.
76.2 percent of women age 45 to 54 worked in 1998 versus 37.9 percent in 1950.
51.2 percent of women age 55 to 64 worked in 1998 versus 27 percent in 1950.
8.6 percent of women age 65+ worked in 1998 versus 9.7 percent in 1950.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor: Changes in Women's Work Participation


I certainly wouldn't have guessed that growing up in the 50's in KY.

 

A husband certainly has the duty to love his wife and do what is best for her but the ultimate decision on whether she works and where she works has to meet with his approval.

My wife does a lot of thing without the appearance of my permission but she still has it.
She didn't have to ask me about the painting she is doing now but if for some reason I had felt that was not in the best interest of our family I could have over ruled.
Of course something like that is fine.

 

Would you like some mayo to go with that load of baloney?

 

Got any scripture to go with yours?

Does 1 Corinthians apply to you or is it the wrong historical context?

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." - 1 Corinthians 11:3​

 

So would you let your wife move across the country for a job and if so, would you go with her?
What if you had a $95,000 per year job and she wanted to move away for a $20,000 per year job?
By your logic, she could go and you would either have to go with her or let her go with out you.

ANd like Rufus said, we have scripture to back up what we are saying.
All you have is ad hominem.

By the way, it seems from your posts that you are a youth hater! ;-)

 

I do not "let" her do anything. She is a free human being.

What if it was reversed? And is money all there is?

If that were her choice, then yes. I don't own her, she doesn't own me. We are together by mutual choice.

Misapplied scripture to back up your chauvinism and view that females are second-class to males.

Not at all. What I am saying is an teenager doesn't have the experience at intergender relationships to tell me what works in my marriage. I have been married 33 years to a strong, intelligent woman, and it is going fine, TYVM!