Cutter, I find this statement to be not only misogynistic, but much more importantly, extremely unbiblical.
Putting the misogyny aside ("stoop" - your implication that only the woman was at fault and that Adam was a martyr and her romanticized savior), Adam could not have saved Eve AFTER she had tasted the forbidden fruit. He did not have that power nor authority.
If there was a time for saving her, it would have been BEFORE.
The Bible says that he was with her when she sinned. Why didn't he stop her before she ate?
"And the serpent said to the woman, 'You shall not die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God knowing good and evil'. So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her and he ate." Genesis 3:4-6
Adam was with her. He ate willingly as a sinful participant - just like she did. She ate because the serpent deceived her and he ate - well, because he just took it from her hand and did it.
If Adam were this romance novel martyr who couldn't bear the thought of his dear wife suffering God's wrath all alone and sacrificing himself for her sake, then why did he throw her under the bus by blaming her and why did he tempt God's wrath, himself, by rebelliously blaming God?
Your romantically sacrificial and noble martyr-Adam does not match the Biblical-Adam who hid from God, blamed his wife, and most of all blamed God for his own wrong behavior.
Adam and Eve were both sinners.
Different in their desire and motivations, but equal in their culpability and equal in their apparent disdain of God's Word and equal in their sin.
I know that you will disagree with me, but c'est la vie. I've heard this Adam-Savior-Romance Novel Martyr theory many times before and it never holds water with me as I interpret the Fall of humanity from a Biblical interpretation.
Women in the workplace.
Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by Cutter, Mar 23, 2010.
Page 3 of 6
-
Scarlett O. ModeratorModerator
-
-
Wow - it's amazing what some men will do to put down women and to build men up.
Fortunately we have the Scriptures to know the truth and not lies. -
But the Titus passage says at home. Look up the phrase "busy at home". It meas work at home. Im not trying to be mean just trying my best to compare scripture to scripture. Proverbs 31 is silent about the nature or extent of the woman's work but Titus 2 says at home.
How do you reconcile these things? -
-
PastorGreg MemberSite Supporter
Haven't been on for a while, so don't know all the history here, but I don't see the OP claiming some of the things assigned to it. Have to agree, though, the Adam thing is ludicrous, whether from DeHaan or anyone else. Adam ate the fruit because he was a man (read stubborn) and no one (including God) was going to tell him he couldn't do it.
The Prov. 31 arguments don't hold up because women couldn't purchase property in that day, so she would have done it as her husband's agent. No, she was not confined to her home, but all her "working" was about caring for her home. It is clearly God's best for the wife to be focused on the home, especially if there are children. TItus 2 has yet to be refuted. "Keepers at home" means her job is the home. It must be her primary focus. Certainly the mom can be involved in helping to provide, as the Prov 31 wife did, but God did not give kids to families to be raised by daycare providers. Obviously, you have special situations with single moms, divorced, widowed, etc. The church needs to graciously step in and minister as much as possible for those types of needs.
BTW - A careful study of history and Scripture will reveal that the norm ahs been for both parents to be at home. The men didn't "go to work," they worked their own fields or tended their own shop with the family, at emeals wit hteh family, etc. I believe that having either parent (much less both) absent from the home for 50 - 80 hours a week is contrary to God's plan. Thou mayest commence throwing thy projectiles. -
I also do think that churches need to step in to assist those families who need the help (widows, single moms, etc.) and I see that happening in our church right now with a widow. It brings tears to my eyes to see the church doing what God designed it to do - it just works so well! -
-
PastorGreg MemberSite Supporter
Sure it can. THousands of people do it every year. Not in the house, obviously, but at home.
-
A woman working is only a problem when it prevents her from guiding the house and raising children. For instance, if a woman spends all her time working and neglects her family, she is not doing what God has instructed and it is then a problem. Obviously things work ideally when the woman is able to stay home with the kids, but as long as she is able to fill her role in the home, there is no problem.
Now, I want to remind you that us men have roles too. We, likewise, shouldn't spend all our time working to the neglect of our family. We also shouldn't come home and prop up our feet every evening while the wife slaves away cooking and cleaning. Treat your wife in accordance with the knowledge that you are heirs together of the grace of life. -
What makes you think that a working woman doesn't have her home as her primary concern?
-
Revmitchell Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Some do...many do not -
I'll give you two examples:
1 - Mom has two young children ages 2 years and a 2 month old baby. Baby gets fussy in the morning while mom is trying to get ready for work so she has hubby run baby over to daycare so she can get ready then she brings the 2 year old to daycare too. She doesn't need to work but couldn't imagine being home all day with her kids and she doesn't want to give up her "career" (she's a secretary).
2 - Mom has 3 young children at home. She needs to work because they can't afford their tiny two bedroom home without her income. She has her mom watch the kids and leaves work immediately when she's done so that she can get home to them. She will take time off here and there just to be able to be home with sick children or whatever and her employer is more than happy to work with her so that she can continue bringing in a paycheck yet still be there for her kids.
So, the differences here are that mom #1 has abandoned her place at home and with her children. The second mom has not. It's a matter of heart priorities and mom number one now wonders why her 2 teen boys are so disrespectful of her and so disobedient. The second mom's three kids are now grown and started working at 14 to be able to bring in money so that mom doesn't have to work so much. They are all married now and have families - and continue to help their mom and dad whenever they can. Yes, both are true stories of people I know well.
Working outside the home is not horrible but where the heart is can make it that way. -
Perhaps the problem is men not stepping up and being responsible?!?!
-
PastorGreg MemberSite Supporter
"So, the differences here are that mom #1 has abandoned her place at home and with her children. The second mom has not. It's a matter of heart priorities"
Well stated, Ann. -
-
-
So wrong. So, so wrong. -
JohnDeereFan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Has it really been worth it? Well, that depends on what you believe the goal is.
There's no question that women in the workplace has had a detremental impact, but there are instances, such as WWII, where it was necessary. -
To a lenghty but good article on women during Tudor times:
http://tudors.crispen.org/tudor_women/
To the Showtime series, sorry I said HBO earlier:
http://www.sho.com/site/tudors/home.do
On the double standard that existed on the treatment of men's adultry compared to a womans:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/828954
On the fact that the view of women as inherently sinful was NOT just a Christian belief:
http://faculty.luther.edu/~kopfg/interesting/papers/ROBIN.HTM
A quote from your fav, John Calvin, on his idea that women are more likely to push for sinful activities, dress provactively in the 1500s and enjoy running around rather than finding things to occupy them at home:
http://www.cas.sc.edu/hist/faculty/edwardsk/hist310/reader/calvinmarriage.pdf
Really the one above shows more that there is nothing new under the sun, than anything else. Calvin complained about exactly the same things as are discussed frequently on this board.
A rather good article on how Martin Luther changed views on women (first few paragraphs):
http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/howreformation_changedworld.htm
Enough?
Page 3 of 6