methinkshe

What was she deceived into doing? You tell me. The Bible is pretty clear and I am sure you can read. Ruth

I'm sorry but this is incredible reaching and stretching. As a man I have to tell you that ejaculation is self gratifying when done alone. It's not about serving. Omigosh, and there is your idea that only men have "seed". I just cannot go there. Please, let's just say it was an interesting idea but it went astray somewhere. Fair enough, leave it. However, just to correct your understanding, I did not talk about "serving" I spoke of "multiplication". The whole concept of seed when used metaphorically in the Bible is to do with multiplication. Where did I mention "serving"? Unless you are referring to the use of the term "serving" as applied to say a bull serving a cow. Ruth

I don't think that anyone has argued that a husband is responsible for his wife's actions. He is responsible for her welfare, both physical and spiritual. That is a different matter entirely. I, as a mother, am responsible for my children's welfare, to keep them fed and clothed and with a roof over their head, for their education in the Lord, for their spiritual welfare, but I am not responsible for their actions. They answer to God for those. Ruth I agree with you Ruth that a husband is responsible for a wifes welfare; physical but not spiritual. God is responsible via the Holy Spirit for everyones spiritual welfare. Husbands are responsible to display godly actions and attitudes, as are wives. Back to the thread's title. Arguing that Adam is responsible for Eve's sin is indeed arguing that Adam was supposedly responsible for Eve's actions. And as you can see, it isn't true. No one can be responsible for another's choices. We can be responsible for our own choices, including if they influence another. But each person will reap the effects of their choices no matter how they come to them, even if deceived. Perhaps I have missed something, or perhaps you have read something that was never there, but I have not heard anyone on this thread attempt to argue that Adam was responsible for Eve's sin, if indeed Eve sinned. As far as I can tell, at the moment of judgment, sin was imputed to Adam and not to Eve - she was deceived - but that is a different matter entirely from suggesting that Adam was responsible for Eve's sin - she didn't sin, she was deceived. Where on earth did you get the idea that anyone is arguing that Adam was reponsible for Eve's sin? According to the Bible she didn't sin - she was decieved, so how could Adam be responsible for that which she is not accused of? Ruth

That is some incredible gender stereotyping. This floored me. Is that really what you think teaching is about?.... mental ejaculating. WOW! I agree that abundant women (and men) need to keep themselves properly unexposed. However, as an aged who loves to dance I find your caricatures of us disturbing. As for hugging our church gives respectable hugs or handshakes or both without any directions. I suggest you get out of that church before your criticalness taints someone else. No one should go to a church that does not fit their personality, unless they are prepared to grow to a different level of spiritual fellowship. When one understands that all references to seed in the Bible are to do with multiplication, it is easy to understand why the Word of God is likened to seed in the parable of the sower and why Biblical teaching can metaphorically be likened to ejaculation of seed. And why there is good seed and bad seed, and why the seed of the Word should be disseminated by the man and received by the woman, and not vice versa. Ruth

And didn't Michal, his wife, take offence and remind him that he should be seemly? Give me another verse from the Bible that speaks about dancing.......... Ruth

Sorry, I do not get any of that from Scripture. I would not dance and shout and float about in my home - that is not my nature - so why should I do it in a public gathering such as church? Am I to become a different person, to leave all inhibitions at the church door and just let go and do that (well, copy that, to be honest, because I have no personal inclination) which I would not even do in my own home? The only time I have done that is under the influence of alcohol when all inhibitions were abandoned, of which I am mightily ashamed. Is not one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, self-control? Should I really lose all inhibitions in church and then call it worship? Ruth

That's too bad,Ruth. My experience is a rich one, where men and women all dance and sing together, men and women serve on the dance tream, worship teams, ushers and elders...everything is done with excellence, as God would have it no other way! There is no line drawn between the genders when it comes to serving and worshiping God. There is no emotionalism, except the kind that comes from the exuberance of worshiping Jesus christ in our midst. The reserved ones are the odd men out and they stick out like a sore thumb. God tells us in His Word that we are to worship Him with shouting and with the dance. We obey. Ah, well, I'll just have to believe that Jesus died for "sore thumbs" as well as the exuberant. Ruth

From my observation it seems to be that when women step forward, men step back, and the more men step back the more women step forward. There is a general feminisation of society that has allowed this to occur but one would have thought that the church, instructed by God's Word, would be immune to it - not so in my experience. What first allowed women to step forward and men to step back is a kind of chicken and egg debate, as far as I can tell, but the problem is that we are now on a self-perpetuating helix of female domination, both in society and in the church, and against God's ordained order of authority - and that can lead to nothing good. Ruth So it looks like the church is following the pattern of the world rather being a pattern for the world to follow. Exactly so! No being salt, no in the world but not of the world, just blind following the world. Judgement begins in the house of God and we have much to answer for. In Jesus, Ruth

I don't think that anyone has argued that a husband is responsible for his wife's actions. He is responsible for her welfare, both physical and spiritual. That is a different matter entirely. I, as a mother, am responsible for my children's welfare, to keep them fed and clothed and with a roof over their head, for their education in the Lord, for their spiritual welfare, but I am not responsible for their actions. They answer to God for those. Ruth

From my observation it seems to be that when women step forward, men step back, and the more men step back the more women step forward. There is a general feminisation of society that has allowed this to occur but one would have thought that the church, instructed by God's Word, would be immune to it - not so in my experience. What first allowed women to step forward and men to step back is a kind of chicken and egg debate, as far as I can tell, but the problem is that we are now on a self-perpetuating helix of female domination, both in society and in the church, and against God's ordained order of authority - and that can lead to nothing good. Ruth

i never said we should walk around and act like we give up. this topic isnt about presenting and letting some one know about Christ. im all for that. Sorry, I didn't make myself very clear - I was agreeing with you and adding to what you said. What I was trying to say was that even though we know through prophecy that the church will become heretical except for the little flock, that does not absolve us from fighting the heresies. I am entirely in agreement with you. My fault entirely for any misunderstanding. Ruth

i may agree. you have men not coming forth and you have men supporting female pastors. however, it is written for it to be this way. When Christ rules with an iron rod do you think He'll rule like that because we arent loving one another? This era is setting up the next era. tell me where it says in scripture it says that when Christ comes that there is a big party and He smiles down on the world? No one is saying to act like we dont care but no one is saying to take matters into your own hands. think about this...if this forum existed 2500 years ago then this TOPIC would stop at page 1 because you'd know there no such thing as female rabbi's. 500 years ago it would stop at page 2 and all agreeing that men should be "leaders." we are in 2007 and have passed 20 pages. put aside the women topic for a second. We are in a point of the Church age's life that no one knows where to go and people are taking matters into their own hands and are running with it. you have people running into every single direction. 200 years from now I WOULD BET MONEY that the topic would be "female pastors" and it will end at page 1 with all agreeing to "yes." scripture doesnt say to turn the Church upside down. this is what scripture says about the last generation of Christians: 7Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. 9But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was. isnt it funny how 2000 years ago it was one point of view and now its another? The Church is run by the bible (which is the Word of God). So who is running the church now? The bible or the people that is "ever-learning but resist divine truth?" I think that whatever God has prophesied concerning the church does not let us off the hook. Even while the outcome may be known, we are not released from our mission to present the truth of God's Word every day, every year, every century until Jesus' return when ALL shall bow, and those things that now we "see through a glass darkly", shall be known. Ruth

I think you are right - women are doing the job because men won't, but the problem is one then gets caught in an ever-descending cycle where the more women DO, the less men want to do, or are capable of doing. Ruth

I currently attend a fellowship where men and women teach and pastor ( it's all that is available within reasonable travelling distance and even then it's 15 miles away.) Actually, women seem to do so more than the men. And that's one of the things I find disturbing. I look around and see receptive men and ejaculating women (spouting teaching) - and it doesn't work well. We have dancing where women of my age - 50 ++ a few years, put on their ballet shoes and attempt to float their abundant bodies before the congregation on tippy-toes with their scarves aloft and their skirts just about covering their wobbling flesh, which I find quite distracting. It's like when all the oldies get up and try and do a Mick Jagger dance at a wedding reception - faintly embarrassing! But that could just be me, I'm quite reserved. The men meanwhile sit quietly in their seats. The women pastors/teachers go for an emotional high, dancing and waving and holding hands, while the men embarrassedly feel a need to join in, and under the direction of a female leader, hug the person to their left or right, as directed. So last Sunday, me and the adjacent male kind of cringed and did as we were told - but we both felt uncomfortable. I would far sooner listen to a man authoritatively teaching God's Word and forget the emotionalism that women seem to find so essential to worship and the building of Christ's body on earth. Ruth

I could have worked that out from your posts before you told me. There is a subtle difference between the responses of women taught by women and women taught by men, sufficient for me to be able to discern it on this board. Whether or not such differences have import in terms of God's order and God's plan is another matter. Ruth

As I see it there is a false dichotomy - should women in ministry be silenced or set free? (To borrow the title from Inhistime's much publicised DVD's). This is misleading; it is to give an either/or that doesn't exist in terms of Scriptural injunctions. It is never suggested in the Bible that women are EITHER silent OR set free. What DOES exist are limitations on a woman's ministry. Yes, she should teach her children, teach other women, and generally contend for the faith, but in church, i.e. a public setting, she should not teach men. Eve did not teach Adam God's commandment not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Adam taught Eve, because He came first, and Adam and Eve are representative of the whole human race. Likewise men have limitations, they are held responsible for their offspring even though they do not bear their children in their own bodies - contrary to the feminist agenda which gives a woman ownership of the child she carries. Ruth

No: either I am allowed to quote from the original translation of the Bible into the English language - i.e. the AV, or I shall leave. And not from pique but because once God's Word is made subject to, and/or altered to accommodate personal feelings, it is not worth the paper it is written on, and if that were ever to occur here at Worthy, then I would either have to leave or by default I would be traducing God's Word. I would prefer to leave than be guilty of the latter. Ruth Ahhh KJV only...................................never mind, this discussion just became moot. I don't believe I ever said AV (KJV) ONLY, just that I have always read from the KJV. Actually, I have many different translations which I use for referral, but I prefer to use the AV as the authoritative translation, largely because the translators were self-confessedly led by the Holy Spirit, wheeas modern translators are more pleased to parade their lingusitic credentials such that on the committe of linguists that produced the NIV was a self-confessed lesbian - and her influence is evident in the NIV translation - but that's for another thread. All I would like to remind you of, or perhaps draw your attention to, is the terrible suffering and martyrdom that produced for our benefit the AV. (Tyndale - for instance). Perhaps we should show some gratitude to those who were burnt at the stake for their efforts instead of just dismissing their efforts as "moot" In Jesus, Ruth

No: either I am allowed to quote from the original translation of the Bible into the English language - i.e. the AV, or I shall leave. And not from pique but because once God's Word is made subject to, and/or altered to accommodate personal feelings, it is not worth the paper it is written on, and if that were ever to occur here at Worthy, then I would either have to leave or by default I would be traducing God's Word. I would prefer to leave than be guilty of the latter. Ruth

Shalom Ruth, Aww come one! You know better! It was asked REPEATEDLY the Mods to not use that word as it is culturally offensive and considered profanity. You mean you refuse to temper your use of that word and use one less culturally offensive on this board even though asked repeatedly? Maybe YOU weren't offended, but the point is, there are young people on this board who WOULD be offended (like my children) and it is consideration for others than is at stake here. We are NOT to give offense in the delivery of the message. If you REALLY don't want to be contentious about it and get your answer, you should PM Wayne (since he is a Mod and made the requests), not re-post the word (several times BTW) that has been identified as offensive as asked by him NOT to be used. Sorry, Vicki, I still don't get it. I have always read the KJV where the words w*** and w**** are used many times. Please tell me why the KJV is now considered so offensive that I may no longer quote from it? If I am ever banned from quoting from the KJV that will be the day that I shake the dust from my feet and leave. In Jesus, Ruth Shalom Ruth, Why are you doing this deliberately hijacking this thread for this issue? Please PM Wayne. This thread is NOT about the KJV or your rights, it's about consideration for the people reading. Is your KJV worth more to you than them?? Do you not care if you cause someone to stumble? If not, you might consider if the KJV is an idol. Romans 14: 20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. 22The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. Footnotes: BTW, my name is Vickilynn. Thanks! I am not hi-jacking this thread, I am actually attempting to give some support to the OP. As for conducting this contention via PM, I would prefer that it was done openly, otherwise I might be accused of publishing a PM against the confidential spirit of such communications, an accusation that has already been levelled in this thread. Therefore, I publically request that all or any mods give a ruling vis a vis quoting from the AV, with especial regard to the fact that some people (you, in particular Vickilynn) have found certain words (whore, whoring) used in the AV culturally offensive. If it transpires that quoting from the AV is not acceptable at Worthy, then I shall of course respect that decision and leave immediately. Perhaps if you reported this post to a mod you would get a quicker response than just waiting for a mod to stumble across it. In Jesus, Ruth

Shalom Ruth, Aww come one! You know better! It was asked REPEATEDLY the Mods to not use that word as it is culturally offensive and considered profanity. You mean you refuse to temper your use of that word and use one less culturally offensive on this board even though asked repeatedly? Maybe YOU weren't offended, but the point is, there are young people on this board who WOULD be offended (like my children) and it is consideration for others than is at stake here. We are NOT to give offense in the delivery of the message. If you REALLY don't want to be contentious about it and get your answer, you should PM Wayne (since he is a Mod and made the requests), not re-post the word (several times BTW) that has been identified as offensive as asked by him NOT to be used. Sorry, Vicki, I still don't get it. I have always read the KJV where the words whore and whoring are used many times. Please tell me why the KJV is now considered so offensive that I may no longer quote from it? If I am ever banned from quoting from the KJV that will be the day that I shake the dust from my feet and leave. In Jesus, Ruth

At the risk of being upbraided by a mod, I have in all honesty to confess that I didn't find BrotherJohn's words offensive once he had fully explained himself. His use of the word "whore" was directly from the AV - the original and inspired translation of the Bible into the English language. For instance: Exodus 34:15,16 Lest thou make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, and they go a whoring after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and one call thee, and thou eat of his sacrifice; And thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters go a whoring after their gods, and make thy sons go a whoring after their gods. Judges 2:17 And yet they would not hearken unto their judges, but they went a whoring after other gods, and bowed themselves unto them: they turned quickly out of the way which their fathers walked in, obeying the commandments of the LORD; but they did not so. Ezekiel 16:28 Thou hast played the whore also with the Assyrians, because thou wast unsatiable; yea, thou hast played the harlot with them, and yet couldest not be satisfied. And if you do a search, there are many, many more Biblical references to whores and whoring. I do not wish to be contentious, but I strongly believe that PCness should not overtake Biblical truth. Whores, whoring and whoredom are used in the Bible as a metaphor for unfaithfulness to God and it seems to me that if we censor the word (and the Word) then we could lose all concept of the gravity of the offence against God. Please correct me if I am in error. Also, if I have misunderstood the objection to BrotherJohn's posts, then once again I ask for correction. In Jesus, Ruth

It is not an issue of censorship. It is an issue of grace and discretion. 1 Cor 2:3,4 Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed: But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience... Is it too much to ask to temper our words? Of course not! It is absolutely required! So could someone please tell me how one is meant to speak of harlots and harlotry - terms that are so frequently mentioned in the Bible - in modern parlance? For instance, we no longer talk of yeomen, we speak of farmers. However, if cultural sensitivity demands that harlots have to be harlots even though the term is archaic and colloquially obsolete, then so be it. I am only asking for information so that I shall not cause offence. Ruth

Shalom Ruth, NO one is censoring the Bible. MY Bible doesn't use the "w" word. And BTW, the "w" word is a culturally offensive word. There are other words to indicate the meaning that are not so offensive, especially to young readers. This should be a consideration of all posters. I fully understand that, Vicki, which is why I asked if someone had a better modern transliteration of the word "harlot" which is so frequently used in the Bible. Is "prostitute" for instance, more culturally acceptable? Ruth

Let us not censor the Bible, though, because harlots and harlotry are frequently mentioned. Proverbs is full of such references! And poor old Hosea was commanded by God to marry one! If the modern transliteration of harlot is whore, should we really take offence and cover children's eyes from reading the Bible? And if the modern transliteration of harlot is not whore, please could someone better versed in Hebrew give me a more accurate understanding? Would "prostitute" be more acceptable, for instance? Thank you, In Jesus, Ruth NB. This post was written in reply to Wayne B but because the topic has moved on, it is not apparent.

This is an interesting comment what I'd like to point out is this, and it should be obvious to many though it is not: If God's word is prohibited from being taught by anyone and to anyone then therein lies the very problem. I must say that what it really comes down to is not gender but minds are clouded. It comes down to God, His Word, His gifting, the body of Christ growing together. It never was about gender when it all began... It's just one way to STOP half the workforce of the kingdom from spreading God's word, knitting together, growing... But all look to gender instead of what's really been happening. The muting of God's word takes all forms. The gender debate is just one of the bigger ones. The fact that the Bible teaches and the church for 2000 years has taught that women should be excluded from the pastorate has nothing to do with "muting of God's Word". Perhaps you believe discrimination by keeping practicing homosexuals or active child molesters out of the pulpit is also a form of muting God's word? Using your specious argument apparently anyone is eligible to preach and teach God's word. After all the Bible does not specifically prevent the two groups I mentioned from doing so and that is apparently the gist of your argument. sw Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, I think you have just given grist to the mill of feminists by placing women on a par with homosexuals and child molesters. If women are Biblically excluded from teaching men because of a God-ordained authority, it has nothing to do with homosexuals or child molesters. Ruth