Is it Ok if men stay home with children while women work

You are making a false accusation against those of us who have simply disagreed with your statements regarding the male ability (or inability) to show compassion. We have used both Scripture and scholarly sources to refute what you have said. However, you have utterly failed to even attempt to refute our assertions using the same manner. You simply keep repeating things you have previously stated that have been demonstrated to be in error. Just because you state something over and over does not somehow negate the fact that your original statement has been soundly refuted.

No one has disputed this fact. However, now you are equivocating the terms "nurturing" and "compassion." They are not one and the same and can not be used interchangeably.

I assure you that I am not attempting to bait you. Likewise, I am not attempting to gang up on you. Why would I do something like that? Better yet why would you jump to such conclusions? I simply disagree with what you stated about the male ability (or inability) to show compassion. As far I as I am concerned the whole debate over the current issue could end right here and now if you would simply acknowledge that true compassion flows out the the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23), and that born again male and female Christians have completely equal access to the fruit the Spirit. I am not talking about some exceptional example but absolutely equal access to the fruit of the Spirit due to the the power of the Holy Spirit that indwells every born again believer.

 

The forum moderator will refer the posters back to the original post and topic

"Is it OK if men stay home with children while women work?"

The question has not been answered biblically as if yet

I refer readers back to the book of Genesis Chapter 3

The scene is the judgment of God upon the serpent, the woman, and Adam----in that particular order

Verses 14-19

We want to pay attention to what is said by God in verses 16-19

Notice when He places judgment upon Eve that Scripture doesn't refer to her as "Eve" but as "the woman"----but when He places judgment upon the man in verse 17---the Scripture refers to him(the man) as Adam---Scripture is careful to call him by name!!

But I want to see how Scripture places the heaviest burden upon Adam-----notice what Scripture says

"And unto Adam He said, Because thou hast harkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return."

The curse that God placed upon the ground was intended for Adam---not for Eve. The thorns and thistles were never intended for Eve. The sweat of the brow was never intended for Eve. The ground was cursed for Adam's sake----not Eve's

IOW----Eve was getting off "lightly" compared to her husband, Adam

Now----as for the original post and the question----is it OK for men to stay home with children while women work

Think about this----God is giving woman a job that cannot be reproduce by man in Genesis 3:16-----a man simply cannot assume the woman's role placed upon her by God in this verse. Although in our modern society I see personally---of sorts---the twist in verse 16---where it says "he shall rule over thee"----I have personally seen this role "reversed"---if you know what I mean---a twist of Scripture.

The dangerous part of a woman---assuming the role of a man --- as in a woman working in the place of a man(bear down on that fact)----the dangerous part of a woman working in the place of a man---and allowing the man to stay at home with the kids is this----the woman(by working in place of the man) is also assuming the curse placed upon man in verse 17-19----just as it is impossible for the man to assume the role of the woman in verse 16----it is also impossible fior the woman to assume the role of the man in verses 17-19----when the roles are reversed---it leads to a dysfuntional family.

By the woman working in the place of man----she is assuming an unnessary burden---she now places twice the load upon herself---in that she must bear the burden placed upon woman in verse 16 plus because she assumes the role of the man---she takes his burden upon herself also---an impossibliity she cannot bear and she does not realize it because of selfishness and also because the god of this age has blinded her eyes through unbelief--but she is now in bondage to a curse that was never intended for her---its no wonder families are in the shape they're in!!!!

 

Different people have different talents. Sometimes women must work outside the home, and some men are very nuturing. No one should make rules for someone elses family. If yours works for you, great.

 

Would it be a reasonable request to ask that you stick to one issue at a time instead of raising different issue after different issue? If you keep jumping from issue to issue we will never come to an understanding of the point you are trying make much less come hopefully, as Christians, come to a biblical agreement on the original issue.

 

I'd have to disagree with you slightly regarding Adam's (man's) ruling over Eve (woman). It was always God's intent and design for the man to have authority over the woman even before the Fall. Man was created first and woman was created out of (God using part of him) the man. This is the created order. God instructed Adam regarding the forbidden fruit. The Bible does not say or imply that God gave the same instruction to Eve. God left it to Adam to teach Eve what God had instructed. Likewise, the curse/punishment is in the fact that God said: "Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen. 3:16, NKJV). I think the reason behind the feelings that women have (which you referenced) regarding male rule or authority come directly from God's pronounced curse related to their desire.

 

There is no part of your humanistic rule that I do not understand. However, the part of your humanistic rule that I have a problem with is where it departs from the clear teaching of the Bible regarding the fruit of the Sipirt (Gal. 5:22-23) with respect to the ability of every born again believer, who is indwelt by the power of the Holy Spirit, to equally show compassion as an out growth of said fruit of the Spirit.

Look, I am not attempting to deny that many men are less compassionate then women; however, I am not addressing the ability of non-Christian men to show compassion I am talking about born again Christian men. You seem to want to come into a Christian discussion forum and focus your argument solely on worldly non-Christian men almost to the exclusion of biblical truth by disregarding the natural out growth of the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23). Then it seems that you are arguing your point based on secular humanistic sources that are focued upon nonChristian men, take a principle from those sources, and apply it to all men in general (including born again Christian men). My point is that you can not do that because it disregards the indewlling power of the Holy Spirit in the born again Christian. Now, since there are millions of born again Christian men in the world the numbers are far to vast to consider them as the exception to the rule you are espousing.

 

I said:

God left it to Adam to teach Eve what God had instructed.

To which Scarlett replied:

We agree that the Bible makes it clear that God instructed only Adam regarding the forbidden fruit. Likewise, we do not see in the Bible where God gave Eve those same instructions Himself. Thus, the implication is that in order for Eve not to disobey God's command Adam had to have told her what God said. If not how else was she to know and obey God's command?

No I am not saying that. I am saying that I disagree with the interpretation of many commentators and preachers regarding what the "desire" in Ge. 3:16 is speaking about. Some maintain that the "desire" has to do with the woman's sexual desire for her husband. However, while I agree that that is within the realm of possibilities it is not solely what the verse is talking about. I think the "desire" also has to do with the curse being that women will desire to rule over men. However, God says that it shall not happen--"And he shall rule over you" (Gen. 3:16, NKJV). I am not attempting disregard what you were expressing about how women feel when men abuse authority. I am saying that I think there is more to those feelings than just that one perspective.

The rule/authority of the man in the one flesh union goes directly back to God's created order. Yes, they become one flesh. However, their one flesh union can not have two heads. Two heads equals a monster. Someone has to have final authority and according to God's original created order that final authority rests with the husband.

I fully agree, and I know that I must seek the Lord's assistance to be that kind of husband to my wife everyday. Lord help me to be more and more like you.raying:

 

I never said that only born again Christians are capable of showing compassion. I simply pointed out that compassion is a natural out growth of the fruit of the Spirit. As such every born again believer, whether male or female, has equal access to the fruit of the Spirit. How much individual born again believers display the fruit of the Spirit depends solely upon how closely they are living according to God's Word and their personal relationship with Christ.

Please explain to me how the ability to show compassion (an act) is an emotion. The two terms "emotion" and "compassion" do not mean the same thing. You are equivocating the two terms. Likewise, compassion is not solely driven by human emotion it is the natural out growth of the fruit of the Spirit as outlined in Gal. 5:22-23.

 

You've obviously never given birth.

 

:laugh: Good one Donna!