This must have been before my time because I have never heard of such a thing ever been taught in my church. Over all I see the decision to use birth control or not as a personal one. And I feel we must not condemn those who may choice differently when we would.
Oh dear,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,typical SINNERSAVED,I never meant to de-rail your thread & go off into any other topics,,,,,,,,you cannot make any simple statement without it being an excuse to debate,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,sorry my good friend,,,,,,
Back on topic,,,,,,,,,,Your questions are most difficult to answer because until we are with Him in our glorious new bodies I don't think we are even able to begin to comprehend these great Mysteries of God Almighty ,,,,,,,we are presently so bound by space & time we cannot even imagine a realm that is eternal with no beginning & no end,,,,,,,,,,,,I do believe that God does know our past,present & future,,,,,,The Scriptures tell us He knows our thoughts (our prayers)before we even speak them,,,,,,,,,so yes,He knew our decisions before we make them as He knew what Adam & Eve would do in the Garden when the serpent tempted Eve,,,,,,,design flaw? NO,not at all,,,,,,,,,,,,God gave us "free will" that we would choose Him because we love Him,,,,,,,,,,,,,I say I'm not sure that My decision counts fgor much because before the foundations of the earth were laid,My Father knew I was His & would make that choice.........................that is how "I " feel about it ,not looking to debate & talk it to death,,,,,,,it is just how I feel,I think we are still entitled to feel how we feel without having to defend that or convince anyone else about it,are we not?
Would love to stay but there's many other topics to look at that are not so argumentative,,,,,,,,,,,,,,thank you Brother,,,,,for giving us food for thought Love,Kwik
What I think is the reality of our financial situation would be quite different if christians had never given into the eugenicist agenda. Our way of life would have been very different.
It would be an error to assume that everything else would be like it is today financially. How things work today is a direct result of our very small, fractured families. If our families were large, how things work today would be different.
Which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Did our way of life come first and did legalizing birth control make sense almost 100 years ago because of how our lives are TODAY?
Or did the legalization of birth control cause changes in society that have resulted in a way of life today, dependent on it, almost 100 years later? I think this one.
It didn't have to be this way. We didn't have to give them this kind of control over our families, our lives, our birthrate. We didn't have to make it easier for them to pursue their agendas by making our numbers available to oppose them smaller and smaller and smaller.
I don't have time this morning to go as deep into this as I would like, but I do have things I need to address in your latest post. I have been very clear from the start, not only in this Soap Box debate, but in all other debates on this subject, that I have never been addressing the way a husband, Christian or otherwise, should behave. I have only been addressing the responsibility of the wife according to scripture, and the fact she is told to obey her husband regardless of how he behaves. Anyone can go back and read through all of the posts and clearly see that I have never said the husband should do this or do that. I have said that we should discuss the husband and how he should behave in another thread, because it is a separate topic. I have been trying to establish the wife's responsibilities before tackling the husband. I am more than happy to discuss what would be abusive behavior on the part of the husband in another thread, but the only point I am making here is that the wife is supposed to obey her husband regardless.
As far as what is abusive behavior, I don't believe we have ever talked about the husband embarrassing his wife in public, shouting at her, putting her down, and calling her derogatory names in public specifically. As far as sex goes, what I said is that neither the husband nor the wife have a right to refuse to have sex according to 1 Corinthians. It is actually a 2 way street, as neither have control of their own body according to scripture when it comes to sex. That is what I said. I said that if both parties followed scripture, you cannot have rape in marriage. But again, this thread and discussion has zero to do with how the husband should behave. The issue is whether or not the wife must obey if the husband doesn't obey God, and since you agreed she should obey him anyway, it seems to me we have found agreement. Here is your quote once again.
A man who is a controlling jerk isn't a Biblical husband and he is a failure before the Lord. She should continue to obey him if for no other reason, than to be a godly example to her controlling, ungodly sinning husband and to the children so they can see what a godly parent looks like, as opposed to her sinful, rebellious husband. Maybe her obedience will bring him to repentance.
That is what I have been saying. The wife is still obligated to obey her husband, even if he is a controlling jerk. We agree. I don't care what your view of the husband is because this is about the wife. I would be more than happy to discuss the husband and how he should behave in another thread. I do plan to come back and take on all the Greek and Hebrew words again, including the word rule, and based on your own method of interpretation, show it does mean rule as a king. It will be rather easy to do, but I will have to begin with the word translated help-meet, and how you derived it's meaning, and then make my case. I will try to do that in the next reply. I will also do the same thing with the word translated to lord in the New Testament. I will prove it is you "moving the goal post" to twist scripture.
As for the Pastor and his authority, you are just wrong. Here is why. I was a Pastor for about 3 years and I know how it is in the real world. While I did come in contact with some other Pastors, it isn't like I knew every Pastor in the country. I only knew a handful of them. I was in a denomination church, and there was one other church of the same denomination in the country. All the other churches were other denominations and some were independent churches. I didn't fellowship with all of them. I barely knew any of them. Most of my contact was with a handful of fellow full gospel Pastors. The same thing would apply to a southern Baptist or Methodist or Presbyterian Pastor. They can surely warn those in the same group, but not all the other denominational churches and independent churches. It is impossible. I couldn't have contacted every church if I wanted to. Some didn't even have contact numbers. The notion a Pastor has that much power is absurd, and I know that having been in that position.
You are claiming the person who was dis-fellowshipped was in some kind of legal trouble, but in most cases, that is nonsense. He would only be in legal trouble if actual physical abuse was taking place. Nobody would be in any trouble for abuse in the way you have used it, like calling names, or controlling one's time or telling someone how much make-up they can wear. You have reduced the term abuse to such a low level, not only is it not a crime, but it would be offensive to someone who really suffered abuse. I know people that were abused, and I mean real abuse. I know a woman who had to wear make-up to cover where her husband hit her. I know a man who was in an abusive relationship where his wife would hit him and had him living in fear. Those people would love to be in what you call abuse if that is all they had to deal with. I also made a distinction between true abuse and what you call abuse when I said how a church would react. When I was Pastor of a church, I generally stayed out of the affairs of a husband and wife. The only way I would get involved in something like abuse is if the wife was physically abused and needed help getting to a shelter. I stayed out of all other matters unless they wanted counseling. Had someone showed up at my church because they were dis-fellowshipped by a meddling Pastor from another church because he didn't want his wife braiding her hair or something silly like that, I would gladly take him in. I would disregard the other Pastor's recommendation. As I also said Shiloh, there is nothing to stop anyone from starting their own church. As far as splitting a church goes, it is easier than you think. It happens all the time. It is also possible to get a Pastor removed. I have seen that happen in cases where nobody thought it possible.
Here is one other thing you failed to consider. What happens to the wife and children if a church dis-fellowships this "controlling" husband? If he is really that controlling, he will pull them out and demand they no longer attend. If I was that kind of person, that is what I would do.