Feminism is anti-Christ

[methinkshe]

Could it be that today's men are trying to duck their God-ordained responsibility for their wives and families, and the authority that attends such responsibilitiy? It wouldn't be the first time. Nothing new under the sun.......

Isaiah 3:12

"As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths."

Ruth

Yes, I think that many men are indeed ducking their responsibilities to nurture, provide for, and care for their wives as their own bodies. Absolutely.

Regarding Isaiah 3 ....... this has often been misquoted out of context to infer that women leaders are wrong. but we aren't talking about women leaders at this moment.

And now I've other things to do.

Then I'm sure you'll agree that one cannot take responsibility unless one has the authority to go with it. It's one of the failings of an over-weening government that loads on parents say, the legal responsibility to make sure their children attend school, yet simultaneously robs them of the authority to execute this responsibility by banning any form of physical chastisement - and which loving parent does not chastise his child? Hebreews 12:11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby. Not that I want to open another can of worms, but it is important to remember that responsibility and authority go hand in hand and one cannot function properly without the other.

Ruth

[Floatingaxe]

Firehill

God takes woman from man...FOR THIS REASON the man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one.

Hum? The bible even specificaly states the purpose of why she was created from him yet you still see it as some hierarchal male dominate purpose. I'm baffled.

I guess you will really be baffled now.

Genesis 2:18--"And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone, I will make him an HELP MEET FOR HIM."

This verse is very plain and states specifically the purpose of why a woman was created as it was for man and it's got nothing to do with male dominance.

OC

It says in the more readable versions, "..a helper comparable to him..."

Cool, eh? Comparable! The same! Equal in all ways!

[firehill]

I know many man that want a strong independent woman beside them. But thats just to big a generalization to provide any accuracy.

Yes, and I'd be one of those. There are quite a few of us around, but they aren't patriarchalists as most on this thread are. And those who appreciate strong women of many varieties know that if we want to serve them, we had best stand beside them rather than over them.

I have noticed numeous attacks on patriarchalists from the feminist side in this thread. At the same time, the Bible teaches a patriarchal system. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, this is the definition of a patriarch. 1. The paternal leader of a family or tribe. 2. One of the founders of the Israelites. 3. An ecclesiastical digniatary, esp. in Eastern churches. 4. A verable old man. If we are going to demonize something, it is good to know what is under attack.

The bible describes a pariarchal system though it does NOT PRESCRIBE it. It's hard to see that though the effects of the fall. Women desire/turn toward their husbands first (the chain of command error...) rather than God and husbands rule over them.

Regardless of whether you believe that the Bible prescribes such a system or not, and I don't agree with you by the way, the word partiarchal has been thrown around as an attack word, and there is nothing Biblically wrong with a patriarchal society. That is all I am pointing out here.

What would you like to call it then, Butero seems how you feel it is used as an attack when it's not?

I'd like to make a very important point. Those who believe in male dominace, male leadership, patriarchy, etc etc live at Genesis 3:16.

BUT it doesn't stop there!

[Floatingaxe]

I said the man was the head of the woman, meaning the husband was the head of the wife.

Though it SAYS 'the man is the head of the woman' in 1 Co 11 you think it MEANS 'the husband is the head of the wife'. You're the one arguing against what it actualy SAYS and applying your own meaning to it.

Have it your own way Firehill. Maybe we should look at this in the general sense, and question whether it is right for women to be in any positions of authority over men? Maybe I have not been taking this far enough? Perhaps I have allowed feminism to even cloud my judgment to some extent, but regardless, this does not help your case. If the man is the head of the woman, that would certainly mean the husband is the head of the wife in authority.

Nope.

[firehill]

I am saying that sacrficial love and mutual honor and respect do not mean equality in authority. Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, yet we are not equal to him.

Of course we are not equal with Christ; He is God, our Creator, our Lord, our Saviour. But humans are equally human regardless of race, social status or gender.

Becoming a husband does not elevate a man to become superior to his wiffe. He is still her equal.

The nonsense of all this has me in hyterics. Equaly human...how elementary is that?

I'm still on page 39!!!!

You go FA! It gets REAL GOOD!

[Scarletprayers]

I am saying that sacrficial love and mutual honor and respect do not mean equality in authority. Christ loved the church and gave himself for it, yet we are not equal to him.

Of course we are not equal with Christ; He is God, our Creator, our Lord, our Saviour. But humans are equally human regardless of race, social status or gender.

Becoming a husband does not elevate a man to become superior to his wiffe. He is still her equal.

The nonsense of all this has me in hyterics. Equaly human...how elementary is that?

I'm still on page 39!!!!

I find your amusement amusing...............................but not in a good way.

[Scarletprayers]

Firehill

God takes woman from man...FOR THIS REASON the man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one.

Hum? The bible even specificaly states the purpose of why she was created from him yet you still see it as some hierarchal male dominate purpose. I'm baffled.

I guess you will really be baffled now.

Genesis 2:18--"And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone, I will make him an HELP MEET FOR HIM."

This verse is very plain and states specifically the purpose of why a woman was created as it was for man and it's got nothing to do with male dominance.

OC

It says in the more readable versins, "..a helper comparable to him..."

Cool, eh? Comparable! The same! Equal in all ways!

By any chance, is that so called readable version that paraphrase you like to use? I personally prefer to use a real Bible.

Amen Butero!

[methinkshe]

Firehill

God takes woman from man...FOR THIS REASON the man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one.

Hum? The bible even specificaly states the purpose of why she was created from him yet you still see it as some hierarchal male dominate purpose. I'm baffled.

I guess you will really be baffled now.

Genesis 2:18--"And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone, I will make him an HELP MEET FOR HIM."

This verse is very plain and states specifically the purpose of why a woman was created as it was for man and it's got nothing to do with male dominance.

OC

It says in the more readable versins, "..a helper comparable to him..."

Cool, eh? Comparable! The same! Equal in all ways!

By any chance, is that so called readable version that paraphrase you like to use? I personally prefer to use a real Bible.

This is a total aside, and please forgive the diversion but I couldn't help but smile at your last comment re a "real Bible." My 21 year old son recently expounded on the difference he noticed between a modern version and the AV re when Jesus was tempted in the wilderness. The AV has Jesus saying to Satan: "Get thee hence, Satan" and the modern version he read had something along the lines of: "Go away, Satan." Whichever way you read it, "get thee hence" is a much more powerful command than, "go away." Even a 21 yr old electrician (i.e. he has no literary leanings) can appreciate that little subtlety. Perhaps that's why old fogies like me are happy to stick with the AV. I know I probably shouldn't indulge my imagination, but "Go away, Satan" conjures up visions of a limp-wristed plea, whereas "Get thee hence" is unmistakably authoritative.

Forgive the diversion.

Ruth

[firehill]

I know many man that want a strong independent woman beside them. But thats just to big a generalization to provide any accuracy.

Yes, and I'd be one of those. There are quite a few of us around, but they aren't patriarchalists as most on this thread are. And those who appreciate strong women of many varieties know that if we want to serve them, we had best stand beside them rather than over them.

I have noticed numeous attacks on patriarchalists from the feminist side in this thread. At the same time, the Bible teaches a patriarchal system. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, this is the definition of a patriarch. 1. The paternal leader of a family or tribe. 2. One of the founders of the Israelites. 3. An ecclesiastical digniatary, esp. in Eastern churches. 4. A verable old man. If we are going to demonize something, it is good to know what is under attack.

The bible describes a pariarchal system though it does NOT PRESCRIBE it. It's hard to see that though the effects of the fall. Women desire/turn toward their husbands first (the chain of command error...) rather than God and husbands rule over them.

Regardless of whether you believe that the Bible prescribes such a system or not, and I don't agree with you by the way, the word partiarchal has been thrown around as an attack word, and there is nothing Biblically wrong with a patriarchal society. That is all I am pointing out here.

What would you like to call it then, Butero seems how you feel it is used as an attack when it's not?

I'd like to make a very important point. Those who believe in male dominace, male leadership, patriarchy, etc etc live at Genesis 3:16.

BUT it doesn't stop there!

When people want to attack something, they often create negative sounding conotations to innocent words. Things like evangelical or fundamentalist for instance are labels used to make a particular group sound bad because the words have been demonized. Feminists have done this with the word patriarchal, and then throw the word around as a way of attacking those who reject their views.

I prefer to use gender hierarchalist because it is VERY ACCURATE. Is that cool then? And no I've not thrown the word 'patriarchalist' around which you know and anyone who reads the entire thread can honestly admit to. Anyway so gender hierarchalist it is?

We can even go with complementarian with hierarchy. I'm a complementarian without it.

[apothanein kerdos]

Better to fight over this than discuss the issues , eh.

Call it what you want. I've made 5 posts in here, all of which went ignored. I posted scriptures, all of which went ignored.

I could run you under the table on this issue...and I don't say that arrogantly, I just believe in truth that much.

I just choose not to waste my time with people who have to copy other people's works in order to make a point and do so in order to make it look like it's their words...you know, pseudo-intellects.