Feminism is anti-Christ

[Openly Curious]

'Floatingaxe'

Eve was not a separate creation, in that God formed her from dust. No--He formed her from already-created Adam, from his side, to stand by his side as his equal partner. Out of Adam, came His own equal. What a marvel! Flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone. No hierarchy, but equality, possessing joint-dominion over this planet.

Hello floatingaxe,

Now if I understand you correctly here and correct me if I am wrong but you are saying that just because Eve wasn't formed from the dust of the ground then she is not a "seperate" creation from man. But because Eve was created from the rib of Adam then that made her an equal partner. But then you say, "Out of Adam, came His own equal" Well that kind of don't make sense to me because the word says that woman was created "FOR MAN TO BE HIS HELPMEET"

The very fact that Adam was formed first from the dust of the ground shows us that there was not equality or they would have both been created from the dust of the ground. If Adam had his own equal then it would have been another male.

OC

[Floatingaxe]

In the feminist doctrine they will always twist the scriptures as they have to in order to do away with authority so making the sexes the same but reality is male and females are different and the word tells us in Timothy that ADAM WAS FIRST FORMEDand that is God's order and no amount of twisting that fact will change things in God's mind for it will remain at it was intended till the end one either follows the simple written word or they don't in this area.

OC

Well! AMEN!

Eve was not a separate creation, in that God formed her from dust. No--He formed her from already-created Adam, from his side, to stand by his side as his equal partner. Out of Adam, came His own equal. What a marvel! Flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone. No hierarchy, but equality, possessing joint-dominion over this planet.

You proved my point floatingaxe

OC

I did? Yippee!

How?

by teaching equality.

you didn't refute if I understood you correctly or not.

so I'll take it I was right in my interpretation of what you said.

OC

That. Is. Affirmative.

[Guest Cole]

Eve was not a separate creation, in that God formed her from dust. No--He formed her from already-created Adam, from his side, to stand by his side as his equal partner. Out of Adam, came His own equal. What a marvel! Flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone. No hierarchy, but equality, possessing joint-dominion over this planet.

Scripture does not support what you just said. Look at some of the books of the New Testament written by Paul and look at the scripture in Genesis right after the eating of the fruit from the true of Good and Evil.

[Floatingaxe]

Eve was not a separate creation, in that God formed her from dust. No--He formed her from already-created Adam, from his side, to stand by his side as his equal partner. Out of Adam, came His own equal. What a marvel! Flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone. No hierarchy, but equality, possessing joint-dominion over this planet.

Scripture does not support what you just said. Look at some of the books of the New Testament written by Paul and look at the scripture in Genesis right after the eating of the fruit from the true of Good and Evil.

Ahem! I have studied that stuff. Don't make me go there, Cole!

[OopsMartin]

Actually not a single of those verses is as specific as the verse that says wives are to submit to husbands, and the husbands are the head of the wife. None say that the husband specifically is to submit to the wife. None of those verses cancel out what God's word has to say about husbands and wives. God's word is sufficient.

Read the list again and tell me where it is not specific. Is there anyone left out? Tell me who is left out?

"In the early church everything was done allelon ("one

another"). They were members of one another (Rom 12:5;

Eph 4:25), who were to build up one another (1Thess 5:11;

Rom 14:19), care for one another (1Cor 12:25), love one

another (1Thess 3:12; 4:9; Rom 13:8; 1John passim), bear

with one another in love (Eph 4:2), bear one another's

burdens (Gal 6:2), be kind and compassionate to one

another, forgiving one another (Eph 4:32), submit to one

another (Eph 5:21), consider one another better than

themselves (Phil 2:3), be devoted to one another in love

(Rom 12:10), and live in harmony with one another (Rom

12:16)."

Those verses do not specify God's design for husbands and wives. Husbands and wives beng the KEY words. You see this scripture here I am posting gives specifics for husbands and wives. Sorry, but the verses I posted are more specific to husbands and wives than your verses are. Those verses do NOT cancel out Ephesians 5:22 which is mighty specific to husbands and wives.

Ephesians 5:22-24

Wives and Husbands

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

NOW...find me a verse that is as specific as this in saying that H-U-S-B-A-N-D-S explicitly are to submit explicitly to their W-I-V-E-S. See, if God meant for husbands and wives to both be in charge of each other and have equal authority, why wouldnt he include some verses saying also that husband should submit to their wives and wives are the head of the husband? Is there something wrong with God's word that it needs such significant twisting?

Think about what you are saying Emily. It sounds very much like you are saying that those seemingly more specific verse CANCEL OUT everything said from 1-21. They do NOT cancel anything out. Rather, the real specifics are verses 1-21. Sacrificial love and mutually honoring submission are two aspects of the same thing. Paul goes on to show how one loves sacrifically (vs. 1-2) and is submissive one to another (vs. 21) in the more intimate relationships. He is not canceling anything out but expanding on how that will look in marriage. In marriage this one to another submission does not stop, but wives are to be that toward their husbands. And husbands are to show forth their sacrificial love in providing for, nurturing and caring for their wives. It does not mean that wives do not express sacrificial love toward their husbands. It does not mean that husbands do not show mutually honoring submission toward their wives. We are all expected to do all of these things. Perhaps, Paul highlighted those for the husband and wife because in the culture of that day men did not generally love their wives, but married them for carrying on their blood lines. And because of this wives often held little true honoring respect or support for those husbands. But God calls us to higher standards.

[OopsMartin]

I would also like to add. We know that Adam and Eve signify Christ and His Church. Are they equal? Let us see the realities behind what the scripture says instead of what is temporary.

Adam and Eve do not signify Christ and the church. Nothing "signifies" Christ but Christ. And nothing signifies the church but the church.

[OopsMartin]

There is not one place in scripture that says that because Eve was formed from Adam's side, that makes them co-equals. That is nothing but someone using human logic. That human logic contradicts things clearly taught in scripture.

Heaven forbid that we should use logic and reasoning when studying God's Word.

From God's Word to Women

http://www.godswordtowomen.org/studies/word%20study/help.htm

HELP

(Hebrew = azar)

azar = prime root: to surround, ie, protect or aid: help, succour

Gesenius adds that the primary idea lies in girding, surrounding, hence defending

MEET

(Hebrew = kenegdo) corresponding to, counterpart to, equal to, matching

The traditional teaching for the woman as help (meet) is that of assistant or helper subservient to the one being helped. This definition would appear to line up with Strong's definition of the word. However, if you look at the context of every other use of the word ezer in the scripture, you will see that ezer refers to either God or military allies. In all other cases the one giving the help is superior to the one receiving the help. Adding kenegdo (meet) modifies the meaning to that of equal rather than superior status. God says just what He means.

Exodus 18:4

And the other was named Eliezer, for he said, "The God of my father was my help (ezer), and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh."

God as our ezer is not following our lead by helping us. He is being our strong ally. When God reformed the woman from the very tissue of the man, she was to become the strong help that he needed as one who is like him yet different. Help in what? Help in his aloneness.

Gen. 2:18 And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him."

Edited May 22, 2007 by OopsMartin

[OopsMartin]

Oopsmartin. If God really wanted to show mutual submission as you claim, he would have had Paul stop at verse 21 and not include verses 22 through 24, which God would have had to have known would cause confusion. In addition, if he were going to include verses 22 through 24, to come up with your conclusions, there would have been an additional verse or two that would have told husbands to submit themselves to their wives. No such verse exists, because that was never God's intent. What the Bible does tell husbands is to love their wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. Christ did love the church and gave himself for it, yet he is our Lord. We are not equal to him. In the same way, the wife is not equal to the husband in authority. They are in importance, but not in authority.

So your solution is to discuss how sacrificial love and mutual honor and respect between Christians works everywhere except for the wife. Is that the ostrich system? I think Paul did it exactly right. Humans just have a lot of trouble giving up personal social privilege and replacing it with servant hearts.

And BTW you may not have noticed that this isn't about the wives. This is really about us men. We want our status and special honors. It's not that easy to give up and take the role of foot washer.

Matt. 20:25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said,

Edited May 20, 2007 by OopsMartin

[Floatingaxe]

Eve was not a separate creation, in that God formed her from dust. No--He formed her from already-created Adam, from his side, to stand by his side as his equal partner. Out of Adam, came His own equal. What a marvel! Flesh of his flesh, bone of his bone. No hierarchy, but equality, possessing joint-dominion over this planet.

Scripture does not support what you just said. Look at some of the books of the New Testament written by Paul and look at the scripture in Genesis right after the eating of the fruit from the true of Good and Evil.

I agree with you that scripture does not support the position of F.A., and it doesn't matter how much she claims to have studied this topic, she is wrong. Her studies are based on extra-Biblical books giving crazy explainations to come up with her conclusions. There is not one place in scripture that says that because Eve was formed from Adam's side, that makes them co-equals. That is nothing but someone using human logic. That human logic contradicts things clearly taught in scripture.

By the way F.A., when I say you are wrong, that is me giving my position that you are wrong in your conclusions. It is not a personal attack. Sometimes when I say things like that or say something is false doctrine, the person I am speaking about thinks I am making them out a heretic or false teacher, when all I am saying is that the position they are taking goes contrary to my understanding of scripture.

I am not wrong. But we will all know in a jiff!

[Floatingaxe]

Oopsmartin. If God really wanted to show mutual submission as you claim, he would have had Paul stop at verse 21 and not include verses 22 through 24, which God would have had to have known would cause confusion. In addition, if he were going to include verses 22 through 24, to come up with your conclusions, there would have been an additional verse or two that would have told husbands to submit themselves to their wives. No such verse exists, because that was never God's intent. What the Bible does tell husbands is to love their wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it. Christ did love the church and gave himself for it, yet he is our Lord. We are not equal to him. In the same way, the wife is not equal to the husband in authority. They are in importance, but not in authority.

So your solution is to discuss how sacrificial love and mutual honor and respect between Christians works everywhere except for the wife. Is that the ostrich system? I think Paul did it exactly right. Humans just have a lot of trouble giving up personal social privilege and replacing it with servant hearts.

I am saying that sacrficial love and mutual honor and respect do not mean equality is authority. Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, yet we are not equal to him. Paul did say it exactly right which is my point. In order for your interpretation to make sense, Paul would have added verses stating the husband was to submit to the wife. After all, he took the time to say wives were to submit to their husbands. Christians have a lot of trouble allowing someone to change the plain meaning of scripture around to fit a feminist agenda.

Paul does say we are to submit one to the other. We do. It is good.