Feminism is anti-Christ

[Floatingaxe]

Myself, I am a firm, old fashioned believer that a wife should be obedient to her husband.

However, if you look at the verse of scripture more closely, there is no need for a woman to feel 'less worthy' than her husband, for the following reason:

A wife is told to obey her husband;

A husband is told to love his wife.

So, who, in actual fact, is the one who 'serves'?.....

The one who 'obeys'....or the one who 'loves'?

There is no reason for anybody, male or female, to take offense at any instruction regarding the marital union, in my opinion. Both are catered for, and no-one needs to feel 'left out' or 'less important' thumbsup.gif

In spite of the fact that Scripture does not say that a wife is to obey her husband, you are correct. IF both spouses seek to serve the other to the fullest of their ability, it should work out for the good of both. Unfortunately, that is the rarest of cases when "authority over" is brought into the marriage. It makes the husband the focal point of the marriage instead of Christ.

Rarely is there a problem of wifely submission in Christian marriages. Christian women have been verbally brow beaten over the centuries into an outward appearance of calm while they are inwardly in turmoil. Because to actually speak up is greeted as "rebellion", they keep silence and make an "appearance" of peace. If you've ever done any Christian counseling what you will hear 90% of the time is males overstepping their positional privileges - over and over and over.

I mean think about it. We're in charge. We make the decisions when it matters. As long as we don't ask our wives to sin, we can ask and expect compliance to whatever we want. So if we want dinner on the table at a certain time, we are within our rights to ask it and GET it. We can demand/request that our wives dress the way we like. And we can justify it that we love her and want her to look good (to us). We can literally order her life for her, all in the name of loving her and wanting what is best for her. I've seen this over and over, but most don't bother with the excuse of loving her and wanting what is best for her. Most just say it like it is, "I'm the man in charge, this is my domain and I'll order it the way I see as best". Children can be treated the same although most men leave the children up to the wife within limits.

Now for those women who applaud and praise authoritative husbands, most have learned how to manipulate their way, part of which is the praise factor. It's the only means available to them.

These are real life situations that I have seen many times in good Christians. Those who do NOT emphasize the "authority over" issues are more likely to serve each other rather than seek to be served.

As I said before, this isn't about the women. It's about men wanting authority, position, privileges. We will fight to the blood for that. But you don't see many fighting to the blood to be sure that the little women are truly cared for the way Christ cares for the church. And perhaps, that is a topic worth considering.

Excellent and accurate!

[firehill]

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.

Up until that post by Firehill, I was only taking the position that the husband is in authority over the wife, but after reading Firehill's claims, I now am forced to consider that the man in general is to rule over women? It didn't start out that way, and I am not ready to take that position, but based on what she pointed out, I have to at least consider the possibility.

Paul meant what he wrote: 'the man is the head of the woman'. You cannot get around it. In order to be consistent you must face the fact when your opinion of what 'head' means is inserted into the 1 Co 11 passage then you have a teaching from Paul that states ALL men are the authority of ALL women. You are not being consistent if you don't. This is one place where the gender hierachalist position crumbles.

Also if the husband is the head of the home based on Ephesians 5 then being consistent you also have to apply the head/body metaphor to the husband's children in which case then you have to explain how it is that the children are the husbands body when only the wife is. Further we are God's children (the church) Christ's body so since the husband is the head of the wife AS Christ is the head of his body (the church) therefore NOT EVEN CHRIST is the head of his family because he has no CHILDREN only a bride. So the idea that the husband is the head of the family based on Eph 5 is GROUNDLESS.

I'm still waiting for you to get around these inconsistencies of gender hierachal ideology.

[OopsMartin]

I would be interested in the source.

http://www.ivpress.com/groothuis/

also:

http://www.ivpress.com/

[apothanein kerdos]

Paul meant what he wrote: 'the man is the head of the woman'. You cannot get around it. In order to be consistent you must face the fact when your opinion of what 'head' means is inserted into the 1 Co 11 passage then you have a teaching from Paul that states ALL men are the authority of ALL women. You are not being consistent if you don't. This is one place where the gender hierachalist position crumbles.

This is, in all honesty, a stupid argument. It can easily be argued that aner and gune refer to "Husband" and "wife." This, put in the context of the passage, makes more sense.

Here's my main contribution to the thread -

Everyone keeps arguing that kephale means "source" or "origin." This commits the error of "semantic obsolescence." In Classical Greek, even in Classical Greek lexicons (such as LSJ), kephale DOES mean "source." However, the New Testament was composed quite a few centuries after the Classical period, and was written in Koine Greek, not Classical Greek. By the time the Bible was written in Koine Greek, kephale had changed from "source" to "authority."

Thus, any argument saying that kephale means "origin" is based upon an earlier meaning of the word and not the meaning of the word at that time.

In fact, I can take this further if you want and prove how this continues to perform an appeal to an unlikely meaning (another exegetical fallacy). Just say the word and I'll continue.

Not to mention these passages went completely ignored:

Colossians 3:18 - "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord."

1 Timothy 3:12 - "Deacons must be husbands of only one wife, and good managers of their children and their own households."

(In other words, before a man can become a deacon, he must be a good manager of his household and children.)

Titus 2:5 - "to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored."

1 Peter 3:1 - "In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives,"

I mean, you can argue all you want that the context of Ephesians 5 doesn't allow for the headship of the man...but honestly...that's just ignorant to the rest of scripture.

[firehill]

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!

Is Gen 3:16 apart of God's Word, how about 1 Pet 3:1. Seems to me that some here dont want to be subject to authority. What does the word say

Heb 13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

To not adhere to God's delagated authority is rebellion, I would like to point out Numbers 12:1-15 again. God is very serious about those He places in stewardship roles.

I don't have issue with leaders, authorities, submission etc. Have you even read this whole thread? Don't be disrespectful by NOT reading the whole thing and then throwing out a comment like this.

What you need to do is first provide a verse that STATES 'the husband is the leader (authority whichever) of the home'. If you can do that then we have a point to AT LEAST begin with. But at is stands NO ONE has been able to provide such a verse.

(btw I can only use cap's for emphasis... ... )

[Scarletprayers]

word!

[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.

Call it what you will, but the whole thing is a smoke screen. So what if those of us who dissagree with the feminist viewpoint have a patriarchal view of things? We believe that God has a set order and that we should abide within that order. If that is patriarchal, so be it.

ACCURACY is the point in calling something what it is. For example many just toss around the word 'feminist' when in fact it's definition is so broad and many can't even define it.

On the other hand being real I'm just trying to accurately call it like it is. Isn't that the whole point of our debate, the TRUTH? Let's try to be as accurate as possible then, eh?

[methinkshe]

Paul meant what he wrote: 'the man is the head of the woman'. You cannot get around it. In order to be consistent you must face the fact when your opinion of what 'head' means is inserted into the 1 Co 11 passage then you have a teaching from Paul that states ALL men are the authority of ALL women. You are not being consistent if you don't. This is one place where the gender hierachalist position crumbles.

This is, in all honesty, a stupid argument. It can easily be argued that aner and gune refer to "Husband" and "wife." This, put in the context of the passage, makes more sense.

Here's my main contribution to the thread -

Everyone keeps arguing that kephale means "source" or "origin." This commits the error of "semantic obsolescence." In Classical Greek, even in Classical Greek lexicons (such as LSJ), kephale DOES mean "source." However, the New Testament was composed quite a few centuries after the Classical period, and was written in Koine Greek, not Classical Greek. By the time the Bible was written in Koine Greek, kephale had changed from "source" to "authority."

Thus, any argument saying that kephale means "origin" is based upon an earlier meaning of the word and not the meaning of the word at that time.

In fact, I can take this further if you want and prove how this continues to perform an appeal to an unlikely meaning (another exegetical fallacy). Just say the word and I'll continue.

Please continue A.K. We need some sanity in this thread.

Yes, please do. I know a little about Koine Greek and how it came about (Alexander the Great, I believe) but I'd love to learn more, especially in relation to this topic.

Ruth

[Openly Curious]

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!

No matter how you want to slice it up floatingaxe the scriptures in Genesis 2 is very clear that Adam and Eve was not on equal ground as Adam was first formed and before Eve was taken from Adam's rib God had given him a law to obey which was not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and also before Eve was created Adam got to name all the animals of the earth.

If they were so equal in dominion and authority as you say then why didn't God also give the law to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to Eve also? and why wasn't Eve along side of Adam when he got to name all the animals of the earth? And better yet why didn't the serpent go to Adam in the garden instead of Eve? Why in God's order of creation was Eve left out of certain things and a target of others?

OC

[Floatingaxe]

This is the third post I've caught OopsMartin copying from another source and trying to make it look like his own words. Nasty habit, eh?

The source is my MS Word notes on 1 Peter 3 saved on my computer. Nasty habit you have of falsely accusing the brethren. tsk tsk!

The above has been reported. You plagiarized. It's not a false accusation...I gave the website. The article is by a female author.

Like I said, the opposite side will result to lying and plagiarism before they admit they're wrong.

Now that is sick.