Women In 1 Corinthians

quote:

---

Common decency, the forum guidelines, and various other strictures do not permit an appropriate response to this individual.

---

That's just an excuse.I had no trouble: Message #46

A reply to my message #46 would be appreciated.

quote:

---

I actually like women evangelists rather listen to gloria rather than kenneth copeland. In Christ there is no male or female however the purpose of the woman is not to hen peck her husband.

---

Sexist.Both men and women nag each other.

quote:

---

That link also mentioned that men at work to be the agresssor to not just do what your told as if that is your duty, etc... Its about having a servants heart not about just being served, etc..

---

Women at work can be agressors, too.

quote:

---

The purpose of the woman to me is to be the agressor, to be the wife, but one in Christ, etc... If a man has a job with a woman as his boss he has to be the aggressor but at home God gave him the right to be the man and the woman becomes the aggressor, etc...

---

This makes no sense.

quote:

---

I fully understand the roles are all screwed up here in America women having to work in the work force,

---

Did it ever occur to you that women like to work, and have a profession?That they find fulfillment and pleasure in having a career, and enjoy the financial independence, mental stimulation, and social interaction, of work and career, just like men do?Becasue they are adult human beings with minds and talent, just like men are?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

As a Christian, can I just say that your sexist pronouncements are offensive. It bears no resemblance to the Christianity I'm familiar with or to the teachings of Christ. It's sexist garbage which you've attempted to dress up as Christian doctrine.This isn't the first time you've done this in your various incarnations and I'm sure it won't be the last.

I agree but based on what? I think that we are about to get shut down om this for going off topic and I agree it's my fault. Sorry

Just curious what was the reason Christ chosed men to be apostles? In Christ there is no male or female yet he chose men to be apostles. When I ever look at cars its usually the man driving is this like something to do with men don't need to ask for directions.It may well be the reason woman are supposed to keep quiet in church and ask their mate questions after. I asked a woman if she would vote for Hiliary and she said "no" that they women are not stable mentally, hmmmm...... I always thought women stable but she said hormones mood swings, etc... I said Oh.......It reminds me of a fishing village that the men all left at that particular time of the month, etc... I'm kind of curious if Obama is getting some of the womans votes for this very reason a woman simply apparently does not trust another woman. I'm sure this lady does not represent all woman any more than the lady link about the purpose of a woman believing its about standing by your man, etc....Google Search HelpP.S. I realize many times the word man was italized meaning it was added by the translators of the authorized kjv thus in Christ there is no male or female, etc...Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.Edited by johnfolton, : changed the word always to usually the man drives. Why is that even the secular men usually are driving the car, etc...

Christ chose men because that was the society He lived in. The gospels are replete with examples of Christ treating women as equals, whether it be the Mary and Martha story or the woman at the well.Christianity is a religion that has promoted the idea that the men and women are equal. We are to submit to and serve each other.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

In the book of John, who was the first person that Jesus revealed himself too after he was resurrected?Hint: Her name was Mary.Just sayin'...

OMG, are you guys trying to be ironic? Johnfolton made the most sexist comments I haven't seen for a long time and there was absolutely no reaction from you guys. But after I pointed out your silence implicating you agree with him, you guys piled onto me instead of him. What you guys just did is exactly what I've been trying to point out for a while now. It seems like you guys just go along with whatever wacky comments made by fellow christians as long as they're made in the name of christ. But god forbids if an atheist like myself jumps in and calls you guys out on it.CS, are you trying to tell me that you don't care enough about sexism in christianity, especially sexism in the name of christian religion?Wow, just wow.

If I remember correctly it was Mary Magdalene not Mary the mother of James, and when Christ appeared to the eleven did he not chide them for not believing the woman folk!!!!!!!! Issac listened to Rebekah in respect to Jacob not marrying from the daughters of Heth.You also have the seed of Sarah is the covenant to the promised land, that Issac being Sarahs Son. Issac's wife Rebekah drew water from the well to water them camels then followed 10 days later to become Issac's wife. What is the seed of Isaac does it not include both the male and the female because of the reference to Sarahs Son!!!!!!!However when Rebekah's son Jacob might chose one of the daughters of Heth for a wife she sent him away because what good would her life be if he married one of these daughters. What was wrong with these daughters that would make her life not worth living to the point she had Issac send him off to Padanaram to take a wife from thence, what was wrong with the daughters of Cannan. This was a woman fearing other woman not just for her sons sake but for her sake, etc...Issac was getting old as was Rebekah and perhaps the last thing she needed was a liberal minded wife for a daughter in law? It does not really say why but today I guess we just put our elderly in a nursing home and throw away the key, etc...Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

My comment was that johnfoltons post was a garbled mess. The reason why you might not find Christians commenting on garbled messes might be other than that "we" don't want to take a "bro" to task.Of the bit that might be taken to be sexist? I could only extract this. Most of the rest of the post seemed to meander around interpreting Revelation in the light of a point not really made. Is John commenting using an interpretation of the divine order which places man at the head of a woman in marriage? And seeing it as shameful that a woman goes against this order? If so, this is not sexist but merely reflecting the divine order for an aspect of the relationship between a man and his wife (or a wife and her husband if you prefer). That's not sexist.Perhaps he means something else that is indeed sexist. Hard to tell and I wasn't planning on trying to tease it all out Doubtlessly there will be some cocky liberal women who will read this. Just like there will be some cocky liberal men. And cocky conservative men and women.So?I didn't read the link. The post didn't warrant it. I called his post a garbled mess and it is. And criticised your approach. You've been around long enough to know fallacious argumentation when you see it. Guilty (of something) until proven innocent is about as weak as it comes.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

johnfoltor AKA whatever AKA The Golfer has always managed to post garbled messes, however his latest opus has clearer bits where the blatant sexism comes over very clearly. He waffles; blatant sexist rubbish!He warbles Sexist garbageHe garbles What sort of crap is this?While Burke is attributed a s saying "All it takes for evil to triumph/flourish is for good men to do nothing", it seems he never said that. What he actually said was; This has become altered to the various forms which we hear tday and which are much less cumbersome than his original phraseology.If someone is misrepresenting the message of Christ, or putting forward distasteful interpretations of it, then fellow Christians should make an effort to distance Christ from this. Can anyone remember what the Bible says about false prophets? To warp the teachings of Christ so that they support distasteful ideas is something that the individual will have to discuss with God when they meet face to face, but in the interim, Christians should do as much as they can to make sure that the true message gets through.Many on here happily preach to other posters their particular view. If they want to do that, they should also be prepared to deal openly with offensive utterances from Christians on Christianity.I can't accept that we do nothing to disagree with offensive comments dressed up as Christianity so as not to "take a bro to task", yet many on here will declare that I am not a Christian because I just so happen to be a scientist who has no trouble accepting ToE!So, I'm in agreement with Taz, that we should stand up and be counted, so to speak. We don't and the simple reason is that we immediately disqualify ourselves from commenting by commenting - we become not true Christians - in the eyes of those we comment against. After a while, you tend to get sick of it.I also believe that those who make such offensive utterings are playing on the fact that many Christians believe "judge not lest ye be judged" or words to that effect, motes, logs and eyes as well.
Well, I know I have faults, that I have to work hard at doing what is right, so a few more sins to join the expanding database of sin that is my psyche won't make a lot of difference.In a nutshelljohnfolton, you're spouting offensive, sexist, ill-informed shite!Mea culpa, mea culpa

I see plenty of women driving cars so that much is inaccurate. I note myself that (as a grouping) womens strengths and weaknesses in driving cars tend to lie in different areas than (as a grouping) mens strengths and weaknesses. John is not so much sexist as he is being imbalanced and offensive. Apparently John has never heard of Maggie Thatcher. I'd give folk around here a little more credit for spotting rubbish than you seem to. A wolf in sheeps clothing would concern me - not someone, Christian or no, spouting blatant nonsense.Lifes too short to deal with nonsense posts Trixie. Take a leaf from the book of those who don't read and reply to them.

Can you clarify your statement

Sure. The term wolf in sheeps clothing implies a certain subtleness and deviousness on the part of the wolf. The techniques of such a one rely on slipping the lie in alongside a message containing as much of God's truth as possible.jf's manner is simply nonsensical. There is no subtley nor deviousness behind it.