Feminism is anti-Christ

[apothanein kerdos]

So most of us can read apparently and can see that in 1 Co 11:3 Paul wrote that the head of EVERY ('EVERY means 'EVERY' married or not) man (secular or saved, SEE vv.7, 8, 12, 14) is Christ and that the head of the woman (married or not, secular or saved, SEE vv.7, 8, 12, 14, & 15 ) is the man.

Have you ever taken a reading comprehension class Firehill? Ovedya and I have been arguing successfully that Christ is the head of every SAVED man. You just keep ignoring it and rely on your presuppositions.

The entire passage is speaking of men and women in general regarding covering up, not covering up, long hair, short hair, being the glory of God, being the glory of man etc etc and even man and woman at creation. All these things APPLY to men and women in general not JUST saved men and women. Therefore even though the entire passage speaks of men and women in general you would argue that v.3 is only speaking of saved man and woman?

Besides, even starting with the point that Paul is speaking of saved men and women and NOT EXCLUSIVELY MARRIED men and women problems still arise.

How is it that the head of EVERY man (saved, married or not) is Christ while he is the head of the church which IS EVERY SAVED man and woman while also the head of the woman (saved married or not) is man (11:3, not husband!)? Since Paul is not speaking about married men and women but saved men and women only in v.3 (according to you) then how is it that just MAN other then the husband is the head of the woman as Paul says in v.3?

The entire passage doesn't talk about men and women in general. It talks about how they're supposed to act within Church.

You're are actualy going to argue that only saved men with long hair are a shame to their head, that only women who are saved and have short hair are a shame to their head, that only saved man is the IMAGE and glory of God ?

*sigh*

Firehill, you haven't responded to the following. You're merely repeating yourself. Here, respond to all this or admit you're wrong:

Because he's trying to make a point about how men and women should act within church. Are you seriously telling me that Paul, the first Christian philosopher/logician (aside from Jesus Christ, who was God in human flesh), has a lapse in his thinking? In chapter 10, 12, and 13, he's dealing with how the church should be governed, specific roles, gifts, etc. When, then, would chapter 11 deal with the overall function of men and women and not within the church? Even the direct context deals with roles in the church. Your interpretation makes literally no sense.

Because he's trying to make a point about how men and women should act within church. Are you seriously telling me that Paul, the first Christian philosopher/logician (aside from Jesus Christ, who was God in human flesh), has a lapse in his thinking? In chapter 10, 12, and 13, he's dealing with how the church should be governed, specific roles, gifts, etc. When, then, would chapter 11 deal with the overall function of men and women and not within the church? Even the direct context deals with roles in the church. Your interpretation makes literally no sense.

Paul was a philosopher. His writing style of appearing to natural law to prove a point within a specific context is common. In Romans 1 he appeals to nature for proof for God. Does this mean a person can come to salvation simply by looking at nature? Of course not - Paul was using a natural law and overall concept in order to explain a specific context (that all men know they are guilty of sin). In Acts 17 he appeals to the unknown god in order to prove God. Does this mean the unknown god should be worshiped? Of course not - he's appealing to an overall idea in order to prove a specific point. He's doing the same in this context. He's saying that women should be subjected to man's authority in the church, and proceeds to appeal to natural order to do this. The passage is not to say that all men are above all women, and especially is not saying that Christ is the head of all men (as some do not follow Him) - it is using a natural concept (that man was created first) to prove an ecclesiological point (that women should not have authority above men in church).

Again, where is your response to the above and where is your response to kephale? At this point, you're just trying to defend your pride, because you don't have a logical leg to stand on.

[Scarletprayers]

Well we can thank the feminist that women have the right to vote and get equal pay for equal jobs, they aren't entirely evil.

Husbands love your wifes as Christ loved the church. What did Jesus say? "I came to serve not to be served." "The greatest among you shall be the servant of all." Then the creator of the universe bent down and washed the disciples dirty feet. The power struggle authority attitude is wrong wrong wrong and not what Jesus taught. We are to submit to each other also, if a man is serving his wife and she is serving him there will be no power struggle. If we, as Christians, male or female, are fighting for the number one spot, demanding our authority, then we are not following Jesus' example and teachings.

Well said.

And has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

[Emily~Anne]

Firehill, we have shown you scripture that says wives are to submit to their husbands. Where is the scripture that says husbands are to submit to their wives?

[Fiosh]

As I watch godly marriages around me, I begin to see what a beautiful picture it is when both the husband and wife operate within the roles God intended (and not kicking against them). I've seen marriages where men fail to lead and women try to take charge, and I've seen marriages that are supposedly "equal" in leadership. But none of these adequately display the picture that God intended (an imitation of Christ and the Church). It all boils down to trust. When you trust someone, you can obey them without fear. If a man loves his wife like Christ loved the church, he will lead her in a way that is best for HER, and best for their family. He will be unselfish, giving, protecting, self-sacrificing (JUST LIKE CHRIST!). And when a woman loves her husband the way the Church should love Christ, she is willing to yield, trust and obey because she understands he is putting her needs ahead of his own. When these things take place, these types of marriages are a testimony to the world....especially in a day and age when everyone is just looking out for number one and most marriages consist of two people on individual paths but merely co-existing.

Exactly, Kabowd. Very insightful of you!

Those who have been arguing against this beautiful Divine plan for marriage may not have ever experienced this kind of love. It is understandable that they may not be willing to submit to a husband who does not love as Christ loves.

Yes, it is understandable, but not impossible - with God all things are possible. Inasmuch as doing so does not contradict God's Word it IS possible to submit to a non-believing husband, with God's grace. What I cannot understand is how those wives who have the blessing of a believing husband cannot enjoy their elevated status - loved as Christ loves the church. What more could one ask for?

Ruth

Interesting point, Ruth. What does Scripture say about a wife with a non-believing husband?

My assumption is that Paul is addressing believers; so is talking about a Christian husband and Christian wife.

Must a Christian wife submit to a husband who is a non-believer? I need to study this a little more.

Peace,

Fiosh

According to 1 Peter 3:1, a wife that obeys a non-believing husband can win him to the Lord by her behavior.

Not arguing with you, because I'm not sure myself. But, I don't see where this passage specifies a non-believing husband. It simply says " Likewise, you wives should be subordinate to your husbands so that, even if some disobey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives' conduct when they observe your reverent and chaste behavior. "

[firehill]

So most of us can read apparently and can see that in 1 Co 11:3 Paul wrote that the head of EVERY ('EVERY means 'EVERY' married or not) man (secular or saved, SEE vv.7, 8, 12, 14) is Christ and that the head of the woman (married or not, secular or saved, SEE vv.7, 8, 12, 14, & 15 ) is the man.

Have you ever taken a reading comprehension class Firehill? Ovedya and I have been arguing successfully that Christ is the head of every SAVED man. You just keep ignoring it and rely on your presuppositions.

The entire passage is speaking of men and women in general regarding covering up, not covering up, long hair, short hair, being the glory of God, being the glory of man etc etc and even man and woman at creation. All these things APPLY to men and women in general not JUST saved men and women. Therefore even though the entire passage speaks of men and women in general you would argue that v.3 is only speaking of saved man and woman?

Besides, even starting with the point that Paul is speaking of saved men and women and NOT EXCLUSIVELY MARRIED men and women problems still arise.

How is it that the head of EVERY man (saved, married or not) is Christ while he is the head of the church which IS EVERY SAVED man and woman while also the head of the woman (saved married or not) is man (11:3, not husband!)? Since Paul is not speaking about married men and women but saved men and women only in v.3 (according to you) then how is it that just MAN other then the husband is the head of the woman as Paul says in v.3?

The entire passage doesn't talk about men and women in general. It talks about how they're supposed to act within Church.

You're are actualy going to argue that only saved men with long hair are a shame to their head, that only women who are saved and have short hair are a shame to their head, that only saved man is the IMAGE and glory of God ?

*sigh*

Firehill, you haven't responded to the following. You're merely repeating yourself. Here, respond to all this or admit you're wrong:

Because he's trying to make a point about how men and women should act within church. Are you seriously telling me that Paul, the first Christian philosopher/logician (aside from Jesus Christ, who was God in human flesh), has a lapse in his thinking? In chapter 10, 12, and 13, he's dealing with how the church should be governed, specific roles, gifts, etc. When, then, would chapter 11 deal with the overall function of men and women and not within the church? Even the direct context deals with roles in the church. Your interpretation makes literally no sense.

Because he's trying to make a point about how men and women should act within church. Are you seriously telling me that Paul, the first Christian philosopher/logician (aside from Jesus Christ, who was God in human flesh), has a lapse in his thinking? In chapter 10, 12, and 13, he's dealing with how the church should be governed, specific roles, gifts, etc. When, then, would chapter 11 deal with the overall function of men and women and not within the church? Even the direct context deals with roles in the church. Your interpretation makes literally no sense.

Paul was a philosopher. His writing style of appearing to natural law to prove a point within a specific context is common. In Romans 1 he appeals to nature for proof for God. Does this mean a person can come to salvation simply by looking at nature? Of course not - Paul was using a natural law and overall concept in order to explain a specific context (that all men know they are guilty of sin). In Acts 17 he appeals to the unknown god in order to prove God. Does this mean the unknown god should be worshiped? Of course not - he's appealing to an overall idea in order to prove a specific point. He's doing the same in this context. He's saying that women should be subjected to man's authority in the church, and proceeds to appeal to natural order to do this. The passage is not to say that all men are above all women, and especially is not saying that Christ is the head of all men (as some do not follow Him) - it is using a natural concept (that man was created first) to prove an ecclesiological point (that women should not have authority above men in church).

Again, where is your response to the above and where is your response to kephale? At this point, you're just trying to defend your pride, because you don't have a logical leg to stand on.

I broke down that post of yours above and responded to it in #647!

Remember how many times you hit bingo?

Bingo!

Bingo!

Bingo!

[apothanein kerdos]

Not arguing with you, because I'm not sure myself. But, I don't see where this passage specifies a non-believing husband. It simply says " Likewise, you wives should be subordinate to your husbands so that, even if some disobey the word, they may be won over without a word by their wives' conduct when they observe your reverent and chaste behavior. "

Peter uses the word apeitheo, which refers to someone who refuses to be persuaded. This means that the person does not believe what he is being told, an "unbeliever." It's used 8 times in the New Testament as "believe not" and each time it refers to people who refuse to accept the Gospel. The four times it's used as "disobedient," three are found within 1 Peter. The first two are used as contrasting descriptive nouns for unbelievers. Peter mentions believers and contrasts them against the "disobedient."

Though it could refer to a disobedient believer, it is most likely referring to someone that did not accept Christ.

[apothanein kerdos]

So most of us can read apparently and can see that in 1 Co 11:3 Paul wrote that the head of EVERY ('EVERY means 'EVERY' married or not) man (secular or saved, SEE vv.7, 8, 12, 14) is Christ and that the head of the woman (married or not, secular or saved, SEE vv.7, 8, 12, 14, & 15 ) is the man.

Have you ever taken a reading comprehension class Firehill? Ovedya and I have been arguing successfully that Christ is the head of every SAVED man. You just keep ignoring it and rely on your presuppositions.

The entire passage is speaking of men and women in general regarding covering up, not covering up, long hair, short hair, being the glory of God, being the glory of man etc etc and even man and woman at creation. All these things APPLY to men and women in general not JUST saved men and women. Therefore even though the entire passage speaks of men and women in general you would argue that v.3 is only speaking of saved man and woman?

Besides, even starting with the point that Paul is speaking of saved men and women and NOT EXCLUSIVELY MARRIED men and women problems still arise.

How is it that the head of EVERY man (saved, married or not) is Christ while he is the head of the church which IS EVERY SAVED man and woman while also the head of the woman (saved married or not) is man (11:3, not husband!)? Since Paul is not speaking about married men and women but saved men and women only in v.3 (according to you) then how is it that just MAN other then the husband is the head of the woman as Paul says in v.3?

The entire passage doesn't talk about men and women in general. It talks about how they're supposed to act within Church.

You're are actualy going to argue that only saved men with long hair are a shame to their head, that only women who are saved and have short hair are a shame to their head, that only saved man is the IMAGE and glory of God ?

*sigh*

Firehill, you haven't responded to the following. You're merely repeating yourself. Here, respond to all this or admit you're wrong:

Because he's trying to make a point about how men and women should act within church. Are you seriously telling me that Paul, the first Christian philosopher/logician (aside from Jesus Christ, who was God in human flesh), has a lapse in his thinking? In chapter 10, 12, and 13, he's dealing with how the church should be governed, specific roles, gifts, etc. When, then, would chapter 11 deal with the overall function of men and women and not within the church? Even the direct context deals with roles in the church. Your interpretation makes literally no sense.

Because he's trying to make a point about how men and women should act within church. Are you seriously telling me that Paul, the first Christian philosopher/logician (aside from Jesus Christ, who was God in human flesh), has a lapse in his thinking? In chapter 10, 12, and 13, he's dealing with how the church should be governed, specific roles, gifts, etc. When, then, would chapter 11 deal with the overall function of men and women and not within the church? Even the direct context deals with roles in the church. Your interpretation makes literally no sense.

Paul was a philosopher. His writing style of appearing to natural law to prove a point within a specific context is common. In Romans 1 he appeals to nature for proof for God. Does this mean a person can come to salvation simply by looking at nature? Of course not - Paul was using a natural law and overall concept in order to explain a specific context (that all men know they are guilty of sin). In Acts 17 he appeals to the unknown god in order to prove God. Does this mean the unknown god should be worshiped? Of course not - he's appealing to an overall idea in order to prove a specific point. He's doing the same in this context. He's saying that women should be subjected to man's authority in the church, and proceeds to appeal to natural order to do this. The passage is not to say that all men are above all women, and especially is not saying that Christ is the head of all men (as some do not follow Him) - it is using a natural concept (that man was created first) to prove an ecclesiological point (that women should not have authority above men in church).

Again, where is your response to the above and where is your response to kephale? At this point, you're just trying to defend your pride, because you don't have a logical leg to stand on.

I broke down that post of yours above and responded to it in #647!

Remember how many times you hit bingo?

Bingo!

Bingo!

Bingo!

But you keep saying it applies to all men and women. I never said that. Do you think this book would help you out in this debate?

[firehill]

Firehill, we have shown you scripture that says wives are to submit to their husbands.

I never asked for those scriptures because I know where they are at. I asked you to show me a scripture where it is written 'the husband is the head of the home.' You didn't provide it.

Where is the scripture that says husbands are to submit to their wives?

Now you ARE asking me a question and I am giving you the answer.

In Eph 5:21 it is written 'submitt to ONE ANOTHER' which means all christians to all christians. Now you can exclude husbands to submit to their wives from 'one to another' if you choose. That is your choice. Jesus said that the greatest shall be a servant and slave. You can exclude husbands from that too if you wish. There is another verse even (I'll have to go find it) where all are instructed to be slaves to eachother.

[Emily~Anne]

Firehill, we have shown you scripture that says wives are to submit to their husbands.

I never asked for those scriptures because I know where they are at. I asked you to show me a scripture where it is written 'the husband is the head of the home.' You didn't provide it.

Where is the scripture that says husbands are to submit to their wives?

Now you ARE asking me a question and I am giving you the answer.

In Eph 5:21 it is written 'submitt to ONE ANOTHER' which means all christians to all christians. Now you can exclude husbands to submit to their wives from 'one to another' if you choose. That is your choice. Jesus said that the greatest shall be a servant and slave. You can exclude husbands from that too if you wish. There is another verse even (I'll have to go find it) where all are instructed to be slaves to eachother.

Several others responded on that, and responded quite well if I may say so. Did you miss those posts? I can bump them up for you.

You see these verses?

Ephesians 5:22-33 (King James Version)

22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

25Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

Colossians 3:18-21 (New International Version)

Rules for Christian Households

18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

19Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them.

20Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.

21Fathers, do not embitter your children, or they will become discouraged.

They are very specific to husbands and wives. Now where is your scripture that is very specific to husbands and wives saying that husbands are to submit to their wives?

My husband is the head of this house. Wanna know how that works? He is the head of me, his wife, and I submit to him, my husband. If we have disagreements about child discipline, I submit to my husband.

[firehill]

So most of us can read apparently and can see that in 1 Co 11:3 Paul wrote that the head of EVERY ('EVERY means 'EVERY' married or not) man (secular or saved, SEE vv.7, 8, 12, 14) is Christ and that the head of the woman (married or not, secular or saved, SEE vv.7, 8, 12, 14, & 15 ) is the man.

Have you ever taken a reading comprehension class Firehill? Ovedya and I have been arguing successfully that Christ is the head of every SAVED man. You just keep ignoring it and rely on your presuppositions.

The entire passage is speaking of men and women in general regarding covering up, not covering up, long hair, short hair, being the glory of God, being the glory of man etc etc and even man and woman at creation. All these things APPLY to men and women in general not JUST saved men and women. Therefore even though the entire passage speaks of men and women in general you would argue that v.3 is only speaking of saved man and woman?

Besides, even starting with the point that Paul is speaking of saved men and women and NOT EXCLUSIVELY MARRIED men and women problems still arise.

How is it that the head of EVERY man (saved, married or not) is Christ while he is the head of the church which IS EVERY SAVED man and woman while also the head of the woman (saved married or not) is man (11:3, not husband!)? Since Paul is not speaking about married men and women but saved men and women only in v.3 (according to you) then how is it that just MAN other then the husband is the head of the woman as Paul says in v.3?

The entire passage doesn't talk about men and women in general. It talks about how they're supposed to act within Church.

You're are actualy going to argue that only saved men with long hair are a shame to their head, that only women who are saved and have short hair are a shame to their head, that only saved man is the IMAGE and glory of God ?

*sigh*

Firehill, you haven't responded to the following. You're merely repeating yourself. Here, respond to all this or admit you're wrong:

Because he's trying to make a point about how men and women should act within church. Are you seriously telling me that Paul, the first Christian philosopher/logician (aside from Jesus Christ, who was God in human flesh), has a lapse in his thinking? In chapter 10, 12, and 13, he's dealing with how the church should be governed, specific roles, gifts, etc. When, then, would chapter 11 deal with the overall function of men and women and not within the church? Even the direct context deals with roles in the church. Your interpretation makes literally no sense.

Because he's trying to make a point about how men and women should act within church. Are you seriously telling me that Paul, the first Christian philosopher/logician (aside from Jesus Christ, who was God in human flesh), has a lapse in his thinking? In chapter 10, 12, and 13, he's dealing with how the church should be governed, specific roles, gifts, etc. When, then, would chapter 11 deal with the overall function of men and women and not within the church? Even the direct context deals with roles in the church. Your interpretation makes literally no sense.

Paul was a philosopher. His writing style of appearing to natural law to prove a point within a specific context is common. In Romans 1 he appeals to nature for proof for God. Does this mean a person can come to salvation simply by looking at nature? Of course not - Paul was using a natural law and overall concept in order to explain a specific context (that all men know they are guilty of sin). In Acts 17 he appeals to the unknown god in order to prove God. Does this mean the unknown god should be worshiped? Of course not - he's appealing to an overall idea in order to prove a specific point. He's doing the same in this context. He's saying that women should be subjected to man's authority in the church, and proceeds to appeal to natural order to do this. The passage is not to say that all men are above all women, and especially is not saying that Christ is the head of all men (as some do not follow Him) - it is using a natural concept (that man was created first) to prove an ecclesiological point (that women should not have authority above men in church).

Again, where is your response to the above and where is your response to kephale? At this point, you're just trying to defend your pride, because you don't have a logical leg to stand on.

I broke down that post of yours above and responded to it in #647!

Remember how many times you hit bingo?

Bingo!

Bingo!

Bingo!

But you keep saying it applies to all men and women. I never said that. Do you think this book would help you out in this debate?

I'm not going to play a semantics game with you, AK. I will state my MAIN point regarding 1 Co 11 one last time for you so that there is ABSOLUTE clarity and if you disagree with it then prove your argument.

Ultimately I'm saying that Paul wrote in 1 Co 11:3 that the head of the WOMAN (vs. the wife) is the MAN (vs. the husband). This is supported by the rest of the passage where he explicilty talks about MEN and WOMEN etc.

Now your job is to explain why. Why did Paul not write in 1 Co 11:3 that the head of the WIFE is the HUSBAND?