Guest Butero Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 IMHO: Interesting how much Bible is ignored or rejected because it advocates something not politically correct. Vague objections (to clear Bible-teaching readily understandable) are put forth, like: "typically extrapolated from a single biblical text without regard to literary or historical context and followed by a parenthetical string of additional unrelated and out-of-context Bible verses for support." Just a wave of the hand to justify disobedience. A little shuckin & jivin. As to perspiring (hey now, it is against the rules to use explicit language here), the curse was lifted after the flood. Ethics is hierarchical in the Bible. A man is not to gross out another man in a society where men kissing men is loathsome. Now Russia is another matter. Now let me tell you that there was this huge mob of persons gathered at the Pearly Gates, seeking entrance. St. Pete came forth & told the mob: Now I want all you men who were forced by your wives to do their will to go to my left. All the men who did what they wanted, go to my right. There was considerable hubbub & dust raised. But when it was over every single man except one little schnook man was on the left, & schnook was on the right. St Pete said to him, "Why are you on the right?" Schnook: "I don't know, but my wife told me to stand here." If the curse was lifted as you claim, people wouldn't die, women wouldn't have pain in child bearing, and men wouldn't have to earn a living by the sweat of their brow. The curse continues to effect this world and everything in it. It is taught in the New Testament that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. The New Testament uses the example of Abraham and Sarah, and how Sarah called Abraham Lord. I really don't believe there is any need to return to the custom of kissing each other, but there are churches that still practice it. To me, a handshake is fine, and all of this is just the work of a woman who got an attitude because of things being taught about women she doesn't like. You can't make one thing null and void by showing that people are ignoring other scriptures. It doesn't work that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 heresy! get back to the kitchen! lol just kidding. I enjoyed the article, made some excellent points. What were the excellent points? I thought the article was silly for the most part. First we have that about men earning a living by the sweat of the brow. It is not a commandment that men sweat while they work, but a curse, neither is God commanding that women have to be in pain while in labor. When it says the husband shall rule over his wife, that is also because of the curse. The woman was given as a help meet, and the husband was always the head, but the difference since the curse is strife that didn't originally exist, requiring him to actually take authority over his wife. God the Father is the head of Jesus Christ, but he doesn't have to rule over him because they have perfect unity. A curse is not a commandment. The scripture about greeting with a holy kiss is just telling people, (I am assuming men and women), to give a courteous greeting to each other, and that was the normal practice at the time. They still do this in some place. I believe that even the Beechy Amish do it today. I have to problem with reviving the custom if people want to. Just don't catch them off guard with it or you might get punched int he nose. Being Pentecostal, I have been in the habit of raising my hand in praise to God, and I see men and women do this all the time. I do that going down the highway sometimes. I am not sure what church this person goes to if the men don't do it but the women do. The article did give me one thing to consider, and that is to look deeper at the teachings we may overlook, and to try to determine how they can be applied today. I sweat all the time on my job, but I suppose if I wanted to sweat as a white collar guy, I could have casual business meetings in a steam room. And that about women keeping silent is dealing with not being disruptive asking questions about what is being taught. It isn't saying women can't give testimonies or sing or praise the Lord openly. It is not so much a custom as saying not to be disruptive. I don't know who this Roberta Ellis is, but it just comes across to me like she has resentment over things being taught concerning women, and she is trying to say that men don't follow certain things so they are somehow being hypocritical. Even if she is right, say with something like the holy kiss, which I would think applies to women too, that wouldn't make null and void a single scripture. It would only mean we have work to do in following other scriptures we are neglecting. I immediately thought about taking a little wine for our stomach's sake. Should we start making a point to do that? Who knows what other nuggets of truth are in the Bible we are overlooking? well it brings out that as men, we do often expect things from women, without giving them the same respect in return. For example, my smart alec comment earlier about women belonging in the kitchen-while it was a joke, how often do we as men, expect women to fit this perfect model of what we think they should be-and as christians, we expect them to hold themselves to certain verses be it titus 2, or the wifes submit to your husbands, while failing to hold ourselves to the same standards-we ignore the verse before the wifes submit to your husbands that tell husbands to cherish their wives. We dont follow the "greet one another with a holy kiss" Now Im not suggesting that we greet one another with a holy kiss, thats obviously a cultural thing, but, the article does point out the hypocrisy. Lets look at the point about women assuming authority over men. Well, we have churches today with women pastors-some with female elders. Is this Biblical? no. but my question is, where are the men? That women, is in that position 9 times out of ten, because no Godly men stood up and took it. men refused to do the role, leaving a hole, and a women took it. How can we blame the women there for not doing their job, when the men of that church arnt doing theres? The article, basically is getting across its a two way street-if we expect women to follow the Biblical model for them, we as men need to follow our role. yes it was humourous-but it drives home a good point. I just don't see how society really does expect more from women than men when it comes to following scripture. In reality, I would say that more is expected of men than women when it comes to following scripture. The majority of women don't submit to their husbands as unto the Lord. Some do, but not the majority. How many women follow the example of Sarah, calling their husbands Lord? I would say there are more women ignoring scripture on obedience than there are men who don't love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. There was one woman who came in here earlier talking about how women are condemned for wearing pants and having short hair. There are some of us that point out they are disobeying scripture, but that is nothing in comparison to how men are looked at if they have long hair and wear a dress. Christian women in the organization "Concerned Women For America" have raised money off of a book called "Jesse's Dream Skirt," because it has a little boy wearing a skirt, and they say that is promoting men dressing like women. You raise an interesting point about why women sometimes do hold positions in the church they aren't Biblically qualified for. I can't disagree with you there, if there is no qualified men to hold those positions. I would also point out that sometimes there are no men that are really qualified be a Deacon or Bishop in those positions. That doesn't make the scriptures of none effect, but it kind of comes under the category of the ox falling in the pit on the Sabbath day and David eating the show bread. Those things were not technically lawful, but there are instances where the people had no choice but to violate them. We should never ignore God's laws, but sometimes there is no choice but to do something that is technically unlawful. I believe there is a double standard that exists in the church, and in society for that matter, but it favors women, not men. When it comes to the work place, it is acceptable in society that women have a choice to work, or be a home maker or full time Mother. Men who don't work are looked at as dead beats. They don't have the same luxury. I read this kind of stuff and I am thinking, the people who have it made and have the most choices and the least persecution when it comes to doing virtually anything they want complain the most because of some criticism they face from a relatively small number of people that actually hold to the Bible. Most will ignore scripture and say nothing about anything women do for fear of backlash. You would be surprised how many ministers I have talked to in the past about the double standard with regard to clothing that agreed with me, but were scared to preach on clothes because of offending women. I had a guy from a Christian Book store who had tracts on the subject, and agreed with me, but he only kept them for people who requested them, rather than put them on the shelf because it might offend some of the female customers. You can make the case that men don't step up to the plate and fill all the roles they should, and you can make the case there are men who aren't following their head, which is Jesus Christ, by following scripture as they should, but women have absolutely nothing to complain about in this society. Men have far more reason to have an attitude than women, about what is expected of them, with little in return. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 As to perspiring (hey now, it is against the rules to use explicit language here), the curse was lifted after the flood. Where do you see this mentioned in Scripture? Where in scripture? Why Titus 2, of course! Just kidding. It is in the start of the blessed Noahic Covenant of Gen 9 " And Noah builded an altar unto Jehovah, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. 21 And Jehovah smelled the sweet savor; and Jehovah said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake, for that the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." Hold on thar, it shud say "the imagination of woman's heart is evil from her youth!" But setting that aside, Let us lift up the voice & sing: Q Summer and winter, and springtime and harvest, Sun, moon and stars in their courses above, Join with all nature in manifold witness To Thy great faithfulness, mercy and love. Chorus: Great is Thy faithfulness!” “Great is Thy faithfulness!“ Morning by morning new mercies I see; All I have needed Thy hand hath provided— “Great is Thy faithfulness,” Lord, unto me! unQ He didn't curse the ground again anymore, but the Genesis curse wasn't removed. I wish it was. I wouldn't have to work so hard, and would never have to worry about aging and dying. I wish women didn't have pain in child bearing. I wish everything was restored to the conditions that existed in the garden of Eden, for everyone's sake, but its not. No new curses were added to the original. God never said he was removing any curses. There is one possibility I could consider. It is possible that growing crops was harder from the time of the first sin to the time of the flood. I have thought about that, but besides that, nothing has changed, and I don't know that anything changed there either. It is just something I have wondered about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted February 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.76 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.96 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Author Share Posted February 28, 2014 How many women follow the example of Sarah, calling their husbands Lord? I would say there are more women ignoring scripture on obedience than there are men who don't love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevenseas Posted February 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,373 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 683 Days Won: 22 Joined: 02/28/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted February 28, 2014 Thanks Sevenseas for your honest answer and it is nice to have a pleasant conversation for a change. I actually agree with you about gossip being much more of a problem in the church than drinking a glass of wine. The wine is only a problem if you wind up with a church full of drunks. The gossip will destroy lives and split churches. I have seen it first hand. Subjects like this will cause me problems in the conservative churches because I don't tow the conservative line if I think they are wrong, and I have never believed wine in the Bible was anything but alcohol. Now I don't believe Jesus ever sinned by getting drunk, nor do I believe any of the disciples did so, but I do believe they drank wine as a beverage, like we would drink a Pepsi Cola. It was never about getting drunk. I just try to follow scripture as best I can, and if that means being an old line conservative sometimes and coming across as liberal in other instances, so be it. Have a nice night. I would have a glass of wine with you, but I have to drive in early in the morning to make a delivery, so I will stick with coffee. It doesn't do anything for my stomach, but it does help me keep going down the road. I have a bit of a nervous stomach now, so I have an excuse for some of that plop plop fizz fizz. I need to find some ice cold water. It works better that way. well as you know, and yes it is nice to have a pleasant exchange....we do have people getting drunk in the OT with bad results... LOL! I have not had wine in a coons age...had a little brandy at Christmas...but you can take some if you like I hear you on the coffee but water is prob the best thing for us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevenseas Posted February 28, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 30 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,373 Content Per Day: 0.76 Reputation: 683 Days Won: 22 Joined: 02/28/2012 Status: Offline Share Posted February 28, 2014 heresy! get back to the kitchen! lol just kidding. I enjoyed the article, made some excellent points. What were the excellent points? I thought the article was silly for the most part. First we have that about men earning a living by the sweat of the brow. It is not a commandment that men sweat while they work, but a curse, neither is God commanding that women have to be in pain while in labor. When it says the husband shall rule over his wife, that is also because of the curse. The woman was given as a help meet, and the husband was always the head, but the difference since the curse is strife that didn't originally exist, requiring him to actually take authority over his wife. God the Father is the head of Jesus Christ, but he doesn't have to rule over him because they have perfect unity. A curse is not a commandment. The scripture about greeting with a holy kiss is just telling people, (I am assuming men and women), to give a courteous greeting to each other, and that was the normal practice at the time. They still do this in some place. I believe that even the Beechy Amish do it today. I have to problem with reviving the custom if people want to. Just don't catch them off guard with it or you might get punched int he nose. Being Pentecostal, I have been in the habit of raising my hand in praise to God, and I see men and women do this all the time. I do that going down the highway sometimes. I am not sure what church this person goes to if the men don't do it but the women do. The article did give me one thing to consider, and that is to look deeper at the teachings we may overlook, and to try to determine how they can be applied today. I sweat all the time on my job, but I suppose if I wanted to sweat as a white collar guy, I could have casual business meetings in a steam room. And that about women keeping silent is dealing with not being disruptive asking questions about what is being taught. It isn't saying women can't give testimonies or sing or praise the Lord openly. It is not so much a custom as saying not to be disruptive. I don't know who this Roberta Ellis is, but it just comes across to me like she has resentment over things being taught concerning women, and she is trying to say that men don't follow certain things so they are somehow being hypocritical. Even if she is right, say with something like the holy kiss, which I would think applies to women too, that wouldn't make null and void a single scripture. It would only mean we have work to do in following other scriptures we are neglecting. I immediately thought about taking a little wine for our stomach's sake. Should we start making a point to do that? Who knows what other nuggets of truth are in the Bible we are overlooking? well it brings out that as men, we do often expect things from women, without giving them the same respect in return. For example, my smart alec comment earlier about women belonging in the kitchen-while it was a joke, how often do we as men, expect women to fit this perfect model of what we think they should be-and as christians, we expect them to hold themselves to certain verses be it titus 2, or the wifes submit to your husbands, while failing to hold ourselves to the same standards-we ignore the verse before the wifes submit to your husbands that tell husbands to cherish their wives. We dont follow the "greet one another with a holy kiss" Now Im not suggesting that we greet one another with a holy kiss, thats obviously a cultural thing, but, the article does point out the hypocrisy. Lets look at the point about women assuming authority over men. Well, we have churches today with women pastors-some with female elders. Is this Biblical? no. but my question is, where are the men? That women, is in that position 9 times out of ten, because no Godly men stood up and took it. men refused to do the role, leaving a hole, and a women took it. How can we blame the women there for not doing their job, when the men of that church arnt doing theres? The article, basically is getting across its a two way street-if we expect women to follow the Biblical model for them, we as men need to follow our role. yes it was humourous-but it drives home a good point. heresy! get back to the kitchen! lol just kidding. I enjoyed the article, made some excellent points. What were the excellent points? I thought the article was silly for the most part. First we have that about men earning a living by the sweat of the brow. It is not a commandment that men sweat while they work, but a curse, neither is God commanding that women have to be in pain while in labor. When it says the husband shall rule over his wife, that is also because of the curse. The woman was given as a help meet, and the husband was always the head, but the difference since the curse is strife that didn't originally exist, requiring him to actually take authority over his wife. God the Father is the head of Jesus Christ, but he doesn't have to rule over him because they have perfect unity. A curse is not a commandment. The scripture about greeting with a holy kiss is just telling people, (I am assuming men and women), to give a courteous greeting to each other, and that was the normal practice at the time. They still do this in some place. I believe that even the Beechy Amish do it today. I have to problem with reviving the custom if people want to. Just don't catch them off guard with it or you might get punched int he nose. Being Pentecostal, I have been in the habit of raising my hand in praise to God, and I see men and women do this all the time. I do that going down the highway sometimes. I am not sure what church this person goes to if the men don't do it but the women do. The article did give me one thing to consider, and that is to look deeper at the teachings we may overlook, and to try to determine how they can be applied today. I sweat all the time on my job, but I suppose if I wanted to sweat as a white collar guy, I could have casual business meetings in a steam room. And that about women keeping silent is dealing with not being disruptive asking questions about what is being taught. It isn't saying women can't give testimonies or sing or praise the Lord openly. It is not so much a custom as saying not to be disruptive. I don't know who this Roberta Ellis is, but it just comes across to me like she has resentment over things being taught concerning women, and she is trying to say that men don't follow certain things so they are somehow being hypocritical. Even if she is right, say with something like the holy kiss, which I would think applies to women too, that wouldn't make null and void a single scripture. It would only mean we have work to do in following other scriptures we are neglecting. I immediately thought about taking a little wine for our stomach's sake. Should we start making a point to do that? Who knows what other nuggets of truth are in the Bible we are overlooking? well it brings out that as men, we do often expect things from women, without giving them the same respect in return. For example, my smart alec comment earlier about women belonging in the kitchen-while it was a joke, how often do we as men, expect women to fit this perfect model of what we think they should be-and as christians, we expect them to hold themselves to certain verses be it titus 2, or the wifes submit to your husbands, while failing to hold ourselves to the same standards-we ignore the verse before the wifes submit to your husbands that tell husbands to cherish their wives. We dont follow the "greet one another with a holy kiss" Now Im not suggesting that we greet one another with a holy kiss, thats obviously a cultural thing, but, the article does point out the hypocrisy. Lets look at the point about women assuming authority over men. Well, we have churches today with women pastors-some with female elders. Is this Biblical? no. but my question is, where are the men? That women, is in that position 9 times out of ten, because no Godly men stood up and took it. men refused to do the role, leaving a hole, and a women took it. How can we blame the women there for not doing their job, when the men of that church arnt doing theres? The article, basically is getting across its a two way street-if we expect women to follow the Biblical model for them, we as men need to follow our role. yes it was humourous-but it drives home a good point. years ago, at a Bible study, when I was a big mouth (no snickers please) this fellow was teaching about women obeying their husbands...he read that portion only and promptly stopped I waited for him to continue, but he did not...he just launched into how women need to obey and yada yada yada So, I put my hand up...I was a teen ager and not married...and when he noted I wanted to say something he asked me...I simply asked...what about the rest of that scripture...where it says husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church and died for it...I went on (his expression was pained by now) and said would not wives be more inclined to honor and respect if they thought they were loved and worth something Well, he never did get back on track and others joined in and the lesson went another way Anyway, this is an old and tired debate for me but absolutely relevant every day of the year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnochBethany Posted February 28, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 649 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 99 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 28, 2014 As to perspiring (hey now, it is against the rules to use explicit language here), the curse was lifted after the flood. Where do you see this mentioned in Scripture? Where in scripture? Why Titus 2, of course! Just kidding. It is in the start of the blessed Noahic Covenant of Gen 9 " And Noah builded an altar unto Jehovah, and took of every clean beast, and of every clean bird, and offered burnt-offerings on the altar. 21 And Jehovah smelled the sweet savor; and Jehovah said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake, for that the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more everything living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease." Hold on thar, it shud say "the imagination of woman's heart is evil from her youth!" But setting that aside, Let us lift up the voice & sing: Q Summer and winter, and springtime and harvest, Sun, moon and stars in their courses above, Join with all nature in manifold witness To Thy great faithfulness, mercy and love. Chorus: Great is Thy faithfulness!” “Great is Thy faithfulness!“ Morning by morning new mercies I see; All I have needed Thy hand hath provided— “Great is Thy faithfulness,” Lord, unto me! unQ He didn't curse the ground again anymore, but the Genesis curse wasn't removed. I wish it was. I wouldn't have to work so hard, and would never have to worry about aging and dying. I wish women didn't have pain in child bearing. I wish everything was restored to the conditions that existed in the garden of Eden, for everyone's sake, but its not. No new curses were added to the original. God never said he was removing any curses. There is one possibility I could consider. It is possible that growing crops was harder from the time of the first sin to the time of the flood. I have thought about that, but besides that, nothing has changed, and I don't know that anything changed there either. It is just something I have wondered about. "I will not again curse the ground any more" I take that to mean that the special curse put on the ground was lifted after the flood. You say, "It is possible that growing crops was harder from the time of the first sin to the time of the flood. That is my POV. "cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground;" Yet we still have thorns & thistles. But the earth brings forth abundant food now. I am having trouble typing in my lap now, as my big dog is putting his head on my hand, whimpering with the little squeal she does. I had to push her away. I am not doing much perspiring. Don't farmers ride in air conditioned tractors? At least some of them. Now my Dad walked after a horse as a boy & young man farming. But he tells me that his ground in Ohio brought forth crops without fertilizer -- & I don't think he used any weed killer. Women indeed go through an awful lot to bring a child into the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnochBethany Posted February 28, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 1 Topic Count: 8 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 649 Content Per Day: 0.18 Reputation: 99 Days Won: 3 Joined: 02/21/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted February 28, 2014 IMHO: Interesting how much Bible is ignored or rejected because it advocates something not politically correct. Vague objections (to clear Bible-teaching readily understandable) are put forth, like: "typically extrapolated from a single biblical text without regard to literary or historical context and followed by a parenthetical string of additional unrelated and out-of-context Bible verses for support." Just a wave of the hand to justify disobedience. A little shuckin & jivin. As to perspiring (hey now, it is against the rules to use explicit language here), the curse was lifted after the flood. Ethics is hierarchical in the Bible. A man is not to gross out another man in a society where men kissing men is loathsome. Now Russia is another matter. Now let me tell you that there was this huge mob of persons gathered at the Pearly Gates, seeking entrance. St. Pete came forth & told the mob: Now I want all you men who were forced by your wives to do their will to go to my left. All the men who did what they wanted, go to my right. There was considerable hubbub & dust raised. But when it was over every single man except one little schnook man was on the left, & schnook was on the right. St Pete said to him, "Why are you on the right?" Schnook: "I don't know, but my wife told me to stand here." If the curse was lifted as you claim, people wouldn't die, women wouldn't have pain in child bearing, and men wouldn't have to earn a living by the sweat of their brow. The curse continues to effect this world and everything in it. It is taught in the New Testament that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church. The New Testament uses the example of Abraham and Sarah, and how Sarah called Abraham Lord. I really don't believe there is any need to return to the custom of kissing each other, but there are churches that still practice it. To me, a handshake is fine, and all of this is just the work of a woman who got an attitude because of things being taught about women she doesn't like. You can't make one thing null and void by showing that people are ignoring other scriptures. It doesn't work that way. "The curse continues to effect this world and everything in it. It is taught in the New Testament that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church." The only curse which IMHO was lifted was the special curse on the ground. It is not a curse on the woman that she should be under the headship of her husband, no more than it is a curse that the Church is under the headship of Christ. It is a curse when a husband lords it over his wife (or vice versa nowadays!) And BTW, how many women have any intention, whatsoever, of obeying their husbands today -- even in the Church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 How many women follow the example of Sarah, calling their husbands Lord? I would say there are more women ignoring scripture on obedience than there are men who don't love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. Can you actually give me any evidence that anything I said is wrong? How did Christ love the church? He certainly didn't give up his place of authority. What he did was lay down his life for the church. Men loving their wives as Christ loved the church would mean following his example, and making sure their wives are cared for, to the point of defending them to the death if necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Butero Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 heresy! get back to the kitchen! lol just kidding. I enjoyed the article, made some excellent points. What were the excellent points? I thought the article was silly for the most part. First we have that about men earning a living by the sweat of the brow. It is not a commandment that men sweat while they work, but a curse, neither is God commanding that women have to be in pain while in labor. When it says the husband shall rule over his wife, that is also because of the curse. The woman was given as a help meet, and the husband was always the head, but the difference since the curse is strife that didn't originally exist, requiring him to actually take authority over his wife. God the Father is the head of Jesus Christ, but he doesn't have to rule over him because they have perfect unity. A curse is not a commandment. The scripture about greeting with a holy kiss is just telling people, (I am assuming men and women), to give a courteous greeting to each other, and that was the normal practice at the time. They still do this in some place. I believe that even the Beechy Amish do it today. I have to problem with reviving the custom if people want to. Just don't catch them off guard with it or you might get punched int he nose. Being Pentecostal, I have been in the habit of raising my hand in praise to God, and I see men and women do this all the time. I do that going down the highway sometimes. I am not sure what church this person goes to if the men don't do it but the women do. The article did give me one thing to consider, and that is to look deeper at the teachings we may overlook, and to try to determine how they can be applied today. I sweat all the time on my job, but I suppose if I wanted to sweat as a white collar guy, I could have casual business meetings in a steam room. And that about women keeping silent is dealing with not being disruptive asking questions about what is being taught. It isn't saying women can't give testimonies or sing or praise the Lord openly. It is not so much a custom as saying not to be disruptive. I don't know who this Roberta Ellis is, but it just comes across to me like she has resentment over things being taught concerning women, and she is trying to say that men don't follow certain things so they are somehow being hypocritical. Even if she is right, say with something like the holy kiss, which I would think applies to women too, that wouldn't make null and void a single scripture. It would only mean we have work to do in following other scriptures we are neglecting. I immediately thought about taking a little wine for our stomach's sake. Should we start making a point to do that? Who knows what other nuggets of truth are in the Bible we are overlooking? well it brings out that as men, we do often expect things from women, without giving them the same respect in return. For example, my smart alec comment earlier about women belonging in the kitchen-while it was a joke, how often do we as men, expect women to fit this perfect model of what we think they should be-and as christians, we expect them to hold themselves to certain verses be it titus 2, or the wifes submit to your husbands, while failing to hold ourselves to the same standards-we ignore the verse before the wifes submit to your husbands that tell husbands to cherish their wives. We dont follow the "greet one another with a holy kiss" Now Im not suggesting that we greet one another with a holy kiss, thats obviously a cultural thing, but, the article does point out the hypocrisy. Lets look at the point about women assuming authority over men. Well, we have churches today with women pastors-some with female elders. Is this Biblical? no. but my question is, where are the men? That women, is in that position 9 times out of ten, because no Godly men stood up and took it. men refused to do the role, leaving a hole, and a women took it. How can we blame the women there for not doing their job, when the men of that church arnt doing theres? The article, basically is getting across its a two way street-if we expect women to follow the Biblical model for them, we as men need to follow our role. yes it was humourous-but it drives home a good point. heresy! get back to the kitchen! lol just kidding. I enjoyed the article, made some excellent points. What were the excellent points? I thought the article was silly for the most part. First we have that about men earning a living by the sweat of the brow. It is not a commandment that men sweat while they work, but a curse, neither is God commanding that women have to be in pain while in labor. When it says the husband shall rule over his wife, that is also because of the curse. The woman was given as a help meet, and the husband was always the head, but the difference since the curse is strife that didn't originally exist, requiring him to actually take authority over his wife. God the Father is the head of Jesus Christ, but he doesn't have to rule over him because they have perfect unity. A curse is not a commandment. The scripture about greeting with a holy kiss is just telling people, (I am assuming men and women), to give a courteous greeting to each other, and that was the normal practice at the time. They still do this in some place. I believe that even the Beechy Amish do it today. I have to problem with reviving the custom if people want to. Just don't catch them off guard with it or you might get punched int he nose. Being Pentecostal, I have been in the habit of raising my hand in praise to God, and I see men and women do this all the time. I do that going down the highway sometimes. I am not sure what church this person goes to if the men don't do it but the women do. The article did give me one thing to consider, and that is to look deeper at the teachings we may overlook, and to try to determine how they can be applied today. I sweat all the time on my job, but I suppose if I wanted to sweat as a white collar guy, I could have casual business meetings in a steam room. And that about women keeping silent is dealing with not being disruptive asking questions about what is being taught. It isn't saying women can't give testimonies or sing or praise the Lord openly. It is not so much a custom as saying not to be disruptive. I don't know who this Roberta Ellis is, but it just comes across to me like she has resentment over things being taught concerning women, and she is trying to say that men don't follow certain things so they are somehow being hypocritical. Even if she is right, say with something like the holy kiss, which I would think applies to women too, that wouldn't make null and void a single scripture. It would only mean we have work to do in following other scriptures we are neglecting. I immediately thought about taking a little wine for our stomach's sake. Should we start making a point to do that? Who knows what other nuggets of truth are in the Bible we are overlooking? well it brings out that as men, we do often expect things from women, without giving them the same respect in return. For example, my smart alec comment earlier about women belonging in the kitchen-while it was a joke, how often do we as men, expect women to fit this perfect model of what we think they should be-and as christians, we expect them to hold themselves to certain verses be it titus 2, or the wifes submit to your husbands, while failing to hold ourselves to the same standards-we ignore the verse before the wifes submit to your husbands that tell husbands to cherish their wives. We dont follow the "greet one another with a holy kiss" Now Im not suggesting that we greet one another with a holy kiss, thats obviously a cultural thing, but, the article does point out the hypocrisy. Lets look at the point about women assuming authority over men. Well, we have churches today with women pastors-some with female elders. Is this Biblical? no. but my question is, where are the men? That women, is in that position 9 times out of ten, because no Godly men stood up and took it. men refused to do the role, leaving a hole, and a women took it. How can we blame the women there for not doing their job, when the men of that church arnt doing theres? The article, basically is getting across its a two way street-if we expect women to follow the Biblical model for them, we as men need to follow our role. yes it was humourous-but it drives home a good point. years ago, at a Bible study, when I was a big mouth (no snickers please) this fellow was teaching about women obeying their husbands...he read that portion only and promptly stopped I waited for him to continue, but he did not...he just launched into how women need to obey and yada yada yada So, I put my hand up...I was a teen ager and not married...and when he noted I wanted to say something he asked me...I simply asked...what about the rest of that scripture...where it says husbands should love their wives as Christ loved the church and died for it...I went on (his expression was pained by now) and said would not wives be more inclined to honor and respect if they thought they were loved and worth something Well, he never did get back on track and others joined in and the lesson went another way Anyway, this is an old and tired debate for me but absolutely relevant every day of the year I will just say this Sevenseas. If he wasn't going to deal with the rest of the passage that week, he should have the following week. We need to be balanced in everything we teach. We were told to follow the example of Jesus and how he loved the church, so husbands need to examine just how Jesus did care for his church when interpreting that passage. I used to teach adult Sunday School, and I loved getting questions about the lesson. In a case like that, if I was planning on covering the rest of the passage the following week, I would have said so and put the message back on track. If the Sunday School book didn't cover the rest for some reason, and wasn't going to the following week, I would have explained that and given a brief answer, and then put the message back on track. If I completely prepared the message, and for some reason wasn't going to cover husbands, I would have given a thorough answer to the question before getting back on topic. I personally enjoy teaching over preaching. That is just me. Everyone is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.jpg.03b9a592ab3fbf402fba028ca0d40a97.thumb.jpg.2258d605d3ad1f34b6effde23d20e7d7.jpg)
Recommended Posts