Boy is he wrong. More fodder for voting these leftist out.

lilyofcourse wrote:

---

He is speaking the future.

---

 The non future.  Fact is the women will finally rebel after getting a taste of the ways of extremist Muslims, in fact, will come to us conservatives to help them.

It's NOT the future.

flan

I think everyone needs to remember that class where they had all the girls wear headscarves to learn to empathize with Muslim women. I do not think you would ever get OLDER women to wear headscarves, but they are continuously trying to make a new oppressed generation with the liberal bias in our education system.

flan327 wrote:

---

Growing up Catholic in the 60's meant wearing those lace doilies to Mass, because...women had to have their hair covered.

flan

---

 Yep, and our school systems did not make non catholic girls wear them in class.  That is the difference.

flan327 wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Growing up Catholic in the 60's meant wearing those lace doilies to Mass, because...women had to have their hair covered.

flan

---

 Yep, and our school systems did not make non catholic girls wear them in class.  That is the difference.

---

 We didn't wear them in class.

flan

---

 Good point,  but the Jewish boys wore their yashmaks and non Jewish boys were not made to wear them. 

I agree with Lily and LL. And it's scary.

flan327 wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Growing up Catholic in the 60's meant wearing those lace doilies to Mass, because...women had to have their hair covered.

flan

---

 Yep, and our school systems did not make non catholic girls wear them in class.  That is the difference.

---

 We didn't wear them in class.

flan

---

 Good point,  but the Jewish boys wore their yashmaks and non Jewish boys were not made to wear them. 

---

 But the Catholic faith has always held women responsible for the "Original Sin," so they are "unclean." (Or that was the prevailing philosophy when I was growing up.)

flan

---

 I certainly hope that it doesn't because that is not Biblical.  The Bible is clear that ALL people are sinners, and that men, as head of the household, will answer to God for the failings of their families in faith.  It is the husband's duty to love his wife and keep her holy and blameless.

The role of the husband in the Bible is fulfilled through the heart of companionship. Ephesians 5:25-33 says, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church—for we are members of his body. ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.” 

 

And before we get into arguments about the Bible making women unequal in marriage - please remember:

This also leads to another understanding of companionship. God created men and women with natural, physical, and emotional differences. Usually where one is weak, the other is strong. Therefore, a husband and wife can help each other by meeting the other person’s needs through physical and emotional intimacy. 1 Corinthians 7:2-5 addresses this, “But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” When the needs of our spouse are properly met through healthy companionship, the two can help each other and can live a successful life together. 

 

Also - the Bible does state that men are the head of the household, but it also bestows upon them greater responsibility and obligations.  Men have many more duties than women do.

God loves His daughters and the children they bear. When He gives one of His daughters to a man, He desires that the man cares for her. In no place does Scripture teach or endorse that women and children be considered second rate or inferior to men. Instead, He finds them so precious that He asks for special care to be given them; a care that only biblically-based men can provide. Women are very capable of taking care of themselves. However, God did make men and women different and thus due to the physical nature and strength God gave men, He has charged them with the provision and protection of their families. 

Furthering this understanding, Ephesians 5:21-24 says, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.” Again, in 1 Corinthians 11:3, Scripture says, "But I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.” 

• • "Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (

1 Timothy 5:8

• • ). 

• • “Husbands, love your wives and do not be harsh with them” (

Colossians 3:19

• • ). 

• • “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers” (

1 Peter 3:7

• ).

flan327 wrote:

---

I spent 8 years attending Catholic school...Mass twice a week. I do actually know what I'm talking about here.

Why do you think women will NEVER be allowed to be priests? Other Christian faiths allow it.

There was a huge fuss when girls were allowed to serve as "altar boys."

flan

---

 While women always have an important role in the church, the Bible says very clearly that women do not have authority over men in the church.  

 

Biblical Texts While the Bible does not support the practice of women serving as pastors, numerous passages speak clearly and forcibly to the inherent worth and value of women. Women in the New Testament engaged in significant ministry, performing valuable service in sometimes-difficult situations. This is readily seen in the Acts of the Apostles. Both Priscilla and Aquila spoke privately to Apollos at Ephesus (Acts 18:24-26), correcting his incomplete and flawed theology. Further, women clearly played a significant role in the work of the Apostle Paul. In his letter to the Romans, Paul identified sixteen significant helpers in ministry (16:1-16), and at least ten of them were women. Who knows what the health of the church at Philippi would have been were it not for Lydia (Acts 16:13-15), apparently a benefactor to the church, and others such as Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2-3)? And of course, women made a significant contribution to Jesus' ministry. Luke recalled with appreciation their financial support and company with Him (Luke 8:1-3). The question at hand is not whether women are of equal value to men, nor is it whether they can minister effectively. It is, rather, the nature of their ministry in the church. More specifically, it is permissible for a woman to serve as senior pastor? The place to begin in this, as in other biblical questions, is to ask, "What does the Bible say?" Even a cursory reading of the pertinent texts reveals three important observations: 1) there were no known women pastors in New Testament times; 2) none of the instructions regarding church order include instructions for women pastors; and 3) some texts on church order explicitly forbid women to occupy that role. Paul, in 1 Tim. 2:12, states, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" (NIV) . This verse is introduced by a statement that women should learn "in silence," and it is followed by the statement that "she must be silent." The word silence means being possessed by a calmness of spirit and peaceful disposition. It is set as the opposite to "teaching" and "having authority over a man." Paul does not expect that women will not or can not learn or teach (compare with Titus 2:3-5 and 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14,15). He states that they cannot teach or have authority over men. Thus, they cannot have a pastoral position, or perform the pastoral function, for that puts them in authority over men. It is logical to conclude, therefore, that the issue would not be raised today if discussion of the parameters for pastoral leadership were confined to the biblical record.

I think people forget who God used to give some of the most important messages in the Bible.

Yes, the men did the preaching.

But God used women to tell of Jesus being alive.

Any time I hear anyone talk about how women are not equal to men in the Bible, I know they have no real understanding of the Bible, if they've read it at all.

The Bible is FULL of WOMEN who lead, direct, and teach.

Well if you pick and choose what you want to believe then I'm guessing they don't really believe in the Bible.

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Well if you pick and choose what you want to believe then I'm guessing they don't really believe in the Bible.

---

 LMAO

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

I spent 8 years attending Catholic school...Mass twice a week. I do actually know what I'm talking about here.

Why do you think women will NEVER be allowed to be priests? Other Christian faiths allow it.

There was a huge fuss when girls were allowed to serve as "altar boys."

flan

---

 While women always have an important role in the church, the Bible says very clearly that women do not have authority over men in the church.  

 

 

Biblical Texts While the Bible does not support the practice of women serving as pastors, numerous passages speak clearly and forcibly to the inherent worth and value of women. Women in the New Testament engaged in significant ministry, performing valuable service in sometimes-difficult situations. This is readily seen in the Acts of the Apostles. Both Priscilla and Aquila spoke privately to Apollos at Ephesus (Acts 18:24-26), correcting his incomplete and flawed theology. Further, women clearly played a significant role in the work of the Apostle Paul. In his letter to the Romans, Paul identified sixteen significant helpers in ministry (16:1-16), and at least ten of them were women. Who knows what the health of the church at Philippi would have been were it not for Lydia (Acts 16:13-15), apparently a benefactor to the church, and others such as Euodia and Syntyche (Phil. 4:2-3)? And of course, women made a significant contribution to Jesus' ministry. Luke recalled with appreciation their financial support and company with Him (Luke 8:1-3). The question at hand is not whether women are of equal value to men, nor is it whether they can minister effectively. It is, rather, the nature of their ministry in the church. More specifically, it is permissible for a woman to serve as senior pastor? The place to begin in this, as in other biblical questions, is to ask, "What does the Bible say?" Even a cursory reading of the pertinent texts reveals three important observations: 1) there were no known women pastors in New Testament times; 2) none of the instructions regarding church order include instructions for women pastors; and 3) some texts on church order explicitly forbid women to occupy that role. Paul, in 1 Tim. 2:12, states, "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man" (NIV) . This verse is introduced by a statement that women should learn "in silence," and it is followed by the statement that "she must be silent." The word silence means being possessed by a calmness of spirit and peaceful disposition. It is set as the opposite to "teaching" and "having authority over a man." Paul does not expect that women will not or can not learn or teach (compare with Titus 2:3-5 and 2 Tim. 1:5; 3:14,15). He states that they cannot teach or have authority over men. Thus, they cannot have a pastoral position, or perform the pastoral function, for that puts them in authority over men. It is logical to conclude, therefore, that the issue would not be raised today if discussion of the parameters for pastoral leadership were confined to the biblical record.

---

 You can, of course, keep quoting the Bible.

I am telling you what I experienced first hand.

Even though I no longer consider myself a Catholic, I recognize the good the religion has done (as well as the bad).

flan

---

 And as I said - just because you were taught that does not make it Biblically sound.  Therein lies the importance of studying God's word yourself instead of just believing or dis-believing what you are told.

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

This is a very good full look at the roles of men and women per the Bible.  Using BIBLICAL principles and support, rather than cultural ones. 

 

http://www.sbclife.net/Articles/1998/05/sla5

 

 

 

---

 Yes, why don't you send that link to the Pope?

flan

---

 You obviously didn't read it.  I don't think there is anything there the Pope would disagree with.  

It's very simple, really. You can read the Bible verse "women, submit to your husbands" and be all pissed off, or you can read the other verses, and realize that it doesn't make men and women unequal, it just gives them different roles.

As an example - you have a manager and an employee at work. They have different roles and responsibilities, but as PEOPLE, they are equal.

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

No, I didn't read it.

I don't like being lectured.

Imagine that!

flan

---

 So you equate studying and being taught something as bad?  Huh.  How on earth did you ever earn a master's degree?

---

 Huh.

I agreed to take classes. YOU are not my professor.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

No, I didn't read it.

I don't like being lectured.

Imagine that!

flan

---

 So you equate studying and being taught something as bad?  Huh.  How on earth did you ever earn a master's degree?

---

 Huh.

I agreed to take classes. YOU are not my professor.

flan

---

 You are the one that posted something completely untrue.

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

No, I didn't read it.

I don't like being lectured.

Imagine that!

flan

---

 So you equate studying and being taught something as bad?  Huh.  How on earth did you ever earn a master's degree?

---

 Huh.

I agreed to take classes. YOU are not my professor.

flan

---

 You are the one that posted something completely untrue.

---

 I have posted NOTHING "untrue" in this thread.

Were you raised Catholic? 

flan

---

 Yes.  Until I was old enough to choose for myself.  You stated what the nuns taught you, which is fine, but untrue.  And then you started arguing it without even being willing to read the scripture on it.  Your arguments are stubbornly ignorant on purpose.

You know what? This is Austria. A country that can't afford to fart without help for NATO. Let them do what the want, the will not get funding for whatever their next issue is. Austria never recovered politically from WWII and has remained that socialist system that Hitler created.

And as I said - just because you were taught that does not make it Biblically sound. Therein lies the importance of studying God's word yourself instead of just believing or dis-believing what you are told.
- Lawyerlady

____________________________________

Which is also a good argument for why one shouldn't join a church or follow a specific denomination either.

I read the Bible.

It describes two or more people in joint worship of God as a "church". I'm not referring to that. I'm referring to "First Presbyterian, you know, over on Church Street" or "Our Lady of Grace over on Times Avenue" or any particular building or denomination.

"The church" as expressed in the Bible is the body of believers. That's not what I was referring to. I was saying don't join a physical church, don't listen to a specific person and take their word for what is meant by the passages in the Bible. I was saying come to the belief and knowledge yourself.

"It is not good that the man should be alone. (Genesis 2:18)
What’s so incredible about this is that God said it before the fall, when Adam’s heart was undimmed by the dark night of sin and he enjoyed unbroken fellowship with his Creator."

"As in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. (Romans 12:4–5)
Together, we are Christ’s body! And according to 1 Corinthians 12, each of us has differing roles that are indispensable to the healthy functioning of this body. Through each of us, God is nourishing and growing his body “until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13)."

"That’s why we gather as the church this weekend. We are not merely “going to church.” We are participating in the greatest mystery and most wonderful wonder that any individual or group of human beings can ever experience: oneness with the body and bride of Christ who together become one with Christ in God."

"There is an enjoyment of God, a “[taste] of the heavenly gift” and a “[sharing] in the Holy Spirit,” and a “[tasting] of the goodness of the Word of God and the powers of the age to come” that cannot be experienced apart from the corporate gathering of Jesus’s church (Hebrews 6:4–5; 1 Corinthians 14:26; Colossians 3:15–16). And there is a manifestation of Jesus’s presence that only occurs when this happens:"

"Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them. (Matthew 18:20) The Bible does instruct us to worship and pray privately (Matthew 6:6). But that will never be the fullest, deepest, most joyful experience of God for us. That is reserved for Christ’s united body, his bride."

"That’s the most profound reason we are not to neglect meeting together (Hebrews 10:25). For when it comes to seeing and savoring Jesus Christ to the fullest, it is not good that man should be alone."

 

http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/why-we-shouldn-t-neglect-to-meet-together