Head "OF" or head "OVER" .....

[Ovedya]

Closed temporarily for review.

[Ovedya]

To all,

We have had at least 5 reports dealing with this thread. Normally, that's enough to close it down and either kill it for good, or take it away for cleansing before releasing it out again for public consumption. Although the number 5 is not a hard and fast number when dealing with reports, usually that gives us an indication that a particular thread is troublesome enough to merit some form of moderation.

Personally, I think this thread has some great points, and could serve to open some ground in some form or fashion. The subject at hand is interesting enough that many here could benefit from it's continued discussion. In order for it to survive, however, certain things are going to have to happen.

We have to remain clear and free of a heart which could result in insulting posts when dealing with the subject. Remember to make the issue the issue, and not the person. By doing that, you remain above the fray and do your part to keep the subject flowing in a natural motion. Once we dive into personal issues, the water gets muddy and the river chokes.

If there are things which you have in your mind, but might detract from the original intent of the thread, you may feel free to split a topic off and create a new thread, PM another member with your concerns, or even employ the "Ignore" feature to eliminate the urge to engage in personal matters.

Keep you focus above and in front of you, and above all else, remember that your Father is watching.

Thank you!

Peace,

t.

The number of reports is now at 12!

This thread is now so large that attempting to edit it for content violations would just be too cumbersome a task. So I would like to propose something to you all: Rather than shutting this thread down completely and having everyone involved sending me a "This is censorship" PM, I would like to propose that a Soapbox debate could be formulated to allow a few interested participants.

There has been some really positive and educational input here, and I think that, as adults, we have the capability of lifting this to a level that we can avoid the personal attacks and the intrusion of previously deleted material. We can do this by simply sticking to the points of the argument and avoiding with fervor the desire to attack or belittle the other persons.

So what do you all think? If you want I can begin by moving posts into a new thread in the Soapbox forum, so that y'all don't have to re-create your arguments. For those interested in participating, you can look at which posts you would like moved, and then I can just discard the rest.

[OopsMartin]

To all,

We have had at least 5 reports dealing with this thread. Normally, that's enough to close it down and either kill it for good, or take it away for cleansing before releasing it out again for public consumption. Although the number 5 is not a hard and fast number when dealing with reports, usually that gives us an indication that a particular thread is troublesome enough to merit some form of moderation.

Personally, I think this thread has some great points, and could serve to open some ground in some form or fashion. The subject at hand is interesting enough that many here could benefit from it's continued discussion. In order for it to survive, however, certain things are going to have to happen.

We have to remain clear and free of a heart which could result in insulting posts when dealing with the subject. Remember to make the issue the issue, and not the person. By doing that, you remain above the fray and do your part to keep the subject flowing in a natural motion. Once we dive into personal issues, the water gets muddy and the river chokes.

If there are things which you have in your mind, but might detract from the original intent of the thread, you may feel free to split a topic off and create a new thread, PM another member with your concerns, or even employ the "Ignore" feature to eliminate the urge to engage in personal matters.

Keep you focus above and in front of you, and above all else, remember that your Father is watching.

Thank you!

Peace,

t.

The number of reports is now at 12!

This thread is now so large that attempting to edit it for content violations would just be too cumbersome a task. So I would like to propose something to you all: Rather than shutting this thread down completely and having everyone involved sending me a "This is censorship" PM, I would like to propose that a Soapbox debate could be formulated to allow a few interested participants.

There has been some really positive and educational input here, and I think that, as adults, we have the capability of lifting this to a level that we can avoid the personal attacks and the intrusion of previously deleted material. We can do this by simply sticking to the points of the argument and avoiding with fervor the desire to attack or belittle the other persons.

So what do you all think? If you want I can begin by moving posts into a new thread in the Soapbox forum, so that y'all don't have to re-create your arguments. For those interested in participating, you can look at which posts you would like moved, and then I can just discard the rest.

That would be interesting. since I am the OP of the thread and my intent is to follow the arguments of Head OF versus Head OVER throughout the Bible and I have organized a grid to follow along I would like that to remain. Although perhaps I could rename it since that title seems to confuse some people I can go through and make a list of all the posts arguing these points, including some of the side issues that were relevant and PM them to you.

[OopsMartin]

This is my last post for this forum. Had it finished when the moderator closed for review. ...........

=======================================================

OK, thus far we have seen that there is no basis for delegated authority or headship at all in Genesis one and two.

For those who think that the scenario in the garden delegates authority, let's look at that again. Remember that assumption, implications and inferrings cannot do what God does not do, will help us to see the true picture of what is happening. Scripture will explain Scripture if we allow it.

15 Then the LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."

18 And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." 19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him.

21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.

The word translated "to tend" is a form of avadh and means to cultivate, to till, to work, to tend. Different form of it in verse 5

[Neopatriarch]

So what do you all think? If you want I can begin by moving posts into a new thread in the Soapbox forum, so that y'all don't have to re-create your arguments. For those interested in participating, you can look at which posts you would like moved, and then I can just discard the rest.

Well, if this is done, and we make this debate a little more formal, may I suggest some resolutions?

OopsMartin, firehill, Floatingaxe, and the other egals should defend this:

Biblical equality excludes hierarchical gender roles.

And AK, OC, myself, and the other comps can defend this:

The bible prescribes hierarchical gender roles.

This gets pretty close to the heart of the matter. And, so that we are not all over the place, may I suggest we focus the debate on Ephesians 5? Other verses might work too, but I don't want to jump all over the place.

I'd like OopsMartin to make the first post.

-Neopatriarch

PS I'm open to changing the resolutions if someone has something better in mind. Personally, I thought "The bible prescribes gender specific roles" might be good, but some egals may accept that.

[Ovedya]

So what do you all think? If you want I can begin by moving posts into a new thread in the Soapbox forum, so that y'all don't have to re-create your arguments. For those interested in participating, you can look at which posts you would like moved, and then I can just discard the rest.

Well, if this is done, and we make this debate a little more formal, may I suggest some resolutions?

OopsMartin, firehill, Floatingaxe, and the other egals should defend this:

Biblical equality excludes hierarchical gender roles.

And AK, OC, myself, and the other comps can defend this:

The bible prescribes hierarchical gender roles.

This gets pretty close to the heart of the matter. And, so that we are not all over the place, may I suggest we focus the debate on Ephesians 5? Other verses might work too, but I don't want to jump all over the place.

I'd like OopsMartin to make the first post.

-Neopatriarch

PS I'm open to changing the resolutions if someone has something better in mind. Personally, I thought "The bible prescribes gender specific roles" might be good, but some egals may accept that.

Let's stay in this line of thought for a while to see if we can come to a resolution that will work.

Any thoughts from those that Neo mentioned here?

[OopsMartin]

So what do you all think? If you want I can begin by moving posts into a new thread in the Soapbox forum, so that y'all don't have to re-create your arguments. For those interested in participating, you can look at which posts you would like moved, and then I can just discard the rest.

Well, if this is done, and we make this debate a little more formal, may I suggest some resolutions?

OopsMartin, firehill, Floatingaxe, and the other egals should defend this:

Biblical equality excludes hierarchical gender roles.

And AK, OC, myself, and the other comps can defend this:

The bible prescribes hierarchical gender roles.

This gets pretty close to the heart of the matter. And, so that we are not all over the place, may I suggest we focus the debate on Ephesians 5? Other verses might work too, but I don't want to jump all over the place.

I'd like OopsMartin to make the first post.

-Neopatriarch

PS I'm open to changing the resolutions if someone has something better in mind. Personally, I thought "The bible prescribes gender specific roles" might be good, but some egals may accept that.

Let's stay in this line of thought for a while to see if we can come to a resolution that will work.

Any thoughts from those that Neo mentioned here?

That is not my line of thought or purpose for the thread. but I've no time to think at the moment, I've an appt. right now.

back later.

[Emily~Anne]

So what do you all think? If you want I can begin by moving posts into a new thread in the Soapbox forum, so that y'all don't have to re-create your arguments. For those interested in participating, you can look at which posts you would like moved, and then I can just discard the rest.

Well, if this is done, and we make this debate a little more formal, may I suggest some resolutions?

OopsMartin, firehill, Floatingaxe, and the other egals should defend this:

Biblical equality excludes hierarchical gender roles.

And AK, OC, myself, and the other comps can defend this:

The bible prescribes hierarchical gender roles.

This gets pretty close to the heart of the matter. And, so that we are not all over the place, may I suggest we focus the debate on Ephesians 5? Other verses might work too, but I don't want to jump all over the place.

I'd like OopsMartin to make the first post.

-Neopatriarch

PS I'm open to changing the resolutions if someone has something better in mind. Personally, I thought "The bible prescribes gender specific roles" might be good, but some egals may accept that.

This sounds excellent. I'll probably be more of a bystander as I so enjoy you, OC's and AK's posts!

[apothanein kerdos]

So what do you all think? If you want I can begin by moving posts into a new thread in the Soapbox forum, so that y'all don't have to re-create your arguments. For those interested in participating, you can look at which posts you would like moved, and then I can just discard the rest.

Well, if this is done, and we make this debate a little more formal, may I suggest some resolutions?

OopsMartin, firehill, Floatingaxe, and the other egals should defend this:

Biblical equality excludes hierarchical gender roles.

And AK, OC, myself, and the other comps can defend this:

The bible prescribes hierarchical gender roles.

This gets pretty close to the heart of the matter. And, so that we are not all over the place, may I suggest we focus the debate on Ephesians 5? Other verses might work too, but I don't want to jump all over the place.

I'd like OopsMartin to make the first post.

-Neopatriarch

PS I'm open to changing the resolutions if someone has something better in mind. Personally, I thought "The bible prescribes gender specific roles" might be good, but some egals may accept that.

Let's stay in this line of thought for a while to see if we can come to a resolution that will work.

Any thoughts from those that Neo mentioned here?

The Soapbox is a debate forum...there is a "win/lose" setting there (in a way). That means this debate could not be perpetual at all, nor could it be a free for all.

There is, however, a way to organize the debate. First, we would have to pick a very specific topic, simply discussing "gender roles" is too broad. It could be "gender roles in light of the creation and fall" or "gender roles in light of Ephesians 5" or "gender roles in light of the Pauline epistles." That means the majority of a post would have to be geared toward that specific portion.

Having multiple people in the rumble means there would have to be a set order of who gets to respond. Assuming it were two people per side, the order could be Eg 1, Comp 1, Eg 2, Comp 2....and so on. Personally, I would prefer the format of:

Eg 1 ----> construct position on topic (max 8,000 words)

Comp 1 ---->constructs his position, along with opposition (max 8,000)

Eg 2 -----> responds and strengthens Eg 1's position (max 8,000)

Comp 2 ----> covers new ground that was not dealt with (max 8,000)

Comp 1 -----> offers a rebuttal (maximum of 1,000 words)

Eg 1 -----> offers a rebuttal (max 1,000 words)

Comp 2 -----> rebuttal (max 1,000 words)

Eg 2 ------> rebuttal (max 1,000 words)

Something similar to that where there is a definite end to the debate. With a limit in what you can say, it provides less motivation for personal attacks to creep in. Likewise, all quotations would serve towards the word limit, and you could not introduce new evidence (that is, quote someone) in the rebuttal phase. You could refer back to a quote, but you could not introduce a new quote, a new point, or anything. This gives a flow to the debate.

That, mixed with a specific topic, is the only way I'd get involved in this.

Plus, I'd say allow a week for each reply, that way all members can PM back and forth ideas on what to say, plus it allows for fairness due to time constraints in the real world.

[firehill]

If we cannot understand what God is saying in Genesis 1 & 2 about creation of man and woman and their relationship then I don't think we can understand the rest of what is said in the bible or another way to put it is that our picture will be distorted. Man and woman 101 is found in Genesis 1 & 2. How can we understand 1 Timothy 2 without comphrehending creation of them and their relationship to eachother as intended, for example? Therefore I like the idea of continuing with man and woman 101 at creation.

Neo, I'll get to your post later...