Evidence for God from Science

Ivellious wrote:What kind of an argument is that, FL? I've made it clear on here before that I don't agree with Islam's scripture on women either. I was only referring to the Bible. If you want to debate the literal passage quoted by domo, go ahead. It seems damn clear to me, and I just shortened it up a bit.

Context is an important issue here, http://www.gci.org/church/ministry/women9 I think this covers the topic quite well.

Well, to be fair, that article does address certain passages, mostly those on what Paul wrote about women, specifically in regards to women in church. The passage I was paraphrasing was not addressed at all in that link. From context, Timothy 2:8-15 is referring to church settings as well, but it seems rather harsh in my opinion, and it's one reason (because apparently ONLY Eve was at fault in Genesis) is faulty and just plain silly at best. The last sentence is literally saying one of two things to me; either women are only allowed to be in church at all because they bear children, or the only reason they are allowed to exist at all is because they bear children. Either way, that is such a sexist thing to say that someone's only value is giving birth.

Also, I am concerned at the notion that the article you posted brings up. That being the sense that the lines about women in church shouldn't be paid attention to...Doesn't that contradict the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired and perfect? Why are we allowed to say those lines "aren't meant to be taken literally" when it says nothing of the sort in the Bible itself?

Ivellious wrote:Well, to be fair, that article does address certain passages, mostly those on what Paul wrote about women, specifically in regards to women in church. The passage I was paraphrasing was not addressed at all in that link. From context, Timothy 2:8-15 is referring to church settings as well, but it seems rather harsh in my opinion, and it's one reason (because apparently ONLY Eve was at fault in Genesis) is faulty and just plain silly at best. The last sentence is literally saying one of two things to me; either women are only allowed to be in church at all because they bear children, or the only reason they are allowed to exist at all is because they bear children. Either way, that is such a sexist thing to say that someone's only value is giving birth.

Also, I am concerned at the notion that the article you posted brings up. That being the sense that the lines about women in church shouldn't be paid attention to...Doesn't that contradict the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired and perfect? Why are we allowed to say those lines "aren't meant to be taken literally" when it says nothing of the sort in the Bible itself?

They are litteral when in context.

As to Timothy 2:8-15 , I will have to look into it.

Ivellious wrote:So, to paraphrase the Bible: "Women should just shut up and have children because that is the only reason they are allowed to exist. They should not expect anything better than subservience because they are inferior beings to men."

Ivellious, the problem with taking a couple of verses like you did, to form a theology, is that the way you interpreted those verses, isn't consistent with the rest of scripture. If you want to be completely honest, you need to read the rest of the bible, and then see if your interpretation that women arent equal to men, is really what scripture says. All scripture is God breathed, and is consistent with itself, when interpreted in proper context.

Ivellious wrote:What kind of an argument is that, FL? I've made it clear on here before that I don't agree with Islam's scripture on women either. I was only referring to the Bible. If you want to debate the literal passage quoted by domo, go ahead. It seems damn clear to me, and I just shortened it up a bit.

I don't want to debate anything here. When I read this comment you made,

Ivellious wrote:So, to paraphrase the Bible: "Women should just shut up and have children because that is the only reason they are allowed to exist. They should not expect anything better than subservience because they are inferior beings to men."

I couldn't decide if you had made it in jest or were serious. Now, it seems you were serious.

You are not able to understand what the Bible says as its meaning is veiled to non-believers. If you want to dimly appreciate what Scripture says, listen to the Christians here who take the time to explain passages to you. If you want to really understand what Scripture says, accept Jesus as Lord.

FL

I will do a proper exegesis here. I admit, I left the verses without context to see who tries to run with it. Lol, I am sorry. So bad. Anyway let's look back in Genesis.

(NASB)Genesis 2:18
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

I want to emphasize this. God said he will make a HELPER suitable for him. He didn't say a co-op, authority, manager, or something to that effect.

(NASB)Genesis 2:22
The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

I want to also emphasize this. She was made from the rib of the man. This is significant for everyone to understand. He didn't create women from his foot to stand over her. Didn't create women from his skull for her to be above him. From the rib carries great significance because your ribs are there to PROTECT you.

(NASB)Genesis 3:1-5
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, ''You shall not eat from any tree of the garden''?" [2] The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; [3] but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ''You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.''" [4] The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! [5] "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

So here we are at the chunk of critical text. Here is the very first lie ever told. Guess who got lied to?
The first lie need to be examined. This is classically known as APPEAL TO EMOTION. The very weakness the the serpent knew he could expose. Key thing to take from this is EMOTION. Keep that in mind.

(NASB)Genesis 3:6, 12-13
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. [12] The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." [13] Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Now, as much as pretty much everyone women wants to also say "well, the man ate, too. He's no angel". Its true, he did BUT where does it say that man didn't believe God when he told him that he will surely die? He believed it, but seeing that SHE didn't DIE from EATING IT. He was deceived BY the WOMEN who was not dead. Also, in the previous quote and anywhere else in the bible, where does it say that MAN would have eaten from the tree if the serpent told the lie? Nowhere, and as much as it SOUNDS sexist and as much as women detest this. The women admitted to being at fault.

Now some may still be saying "the man still sinned, too!". Nobody denies that. However, this approach to reasoning is still fallacious. Its called the Tu quoque fallacy. Objectively, the women's weakness is emotional appeals, and the man's weakness was looking at the fact that the women was not dead and objectively decided he would not die.

So let's go ahead and look at the punishment.

(NASB)Genesis 3:16-17
To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." [17] Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ''You shall not eat from it''; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.

So, here we are. Women punishment entails a few things INCLUDING your desire will be FOR YOUR HUSBAND and he will RULE OVER YOU.

Harsh? I would imagine its harsh and women don't like it. You think that's bad?

Man's punishment is the earth is cursed now. You may be saying, "well, that's not as harsh as our punishment". Wrong. Its worst. Something goes wrong, its mans fault. Earthquake? Kills people. Man's fault. Drought causes food shortage? People die. Mans fault.

Some may still detest this. "I don't care. No man is going to rule over me. I am doing it my way".
Fine. However, let me clarify what a MAN who puts God first is. A MAN who puts God first should be worthy to follow his leadership. It is commanded for the man to love his wife as Christ loved us. Who has the authority in that relationship? The church over Christ? Or Christ's authority over us?

Now, let me be clear in saying that women are not to worship men as if they were Christ. They are tue authority over their wife. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, there may be someone still detesting, "but I can't follow man. That's simply not right, fair, etc, etc".

Can I suggest something? Perhaps your not in a relationship with a man, but rather you are in a relationship with a little boy. So, I suggest then that if you're not married to find a man who love's God and puts God first, because you will respect him and you wont have much problem with him authority over you. If you're married to a little boy, unfortunately, you'll have HELP him grown up to be a MAN because his father didn't teach him how to be a MAN after God's heart. In this case, I sympathize with women, but the best you can do ask God to help you. Unfortunately young women these days are not taking heed to the warnings of the bible of relationships with unbelievers.

I am not suggesting its impossible to do. Afterall, I am a good example of it, and I am not saying this to merely puff up my chest here. I had to grow up. Sure, sometimes I am lazy and the trash needs taking out and I need my wife to get after me from time to time. However, all that Godly stuff. Important family decisions. That's my terroritory, and my wife is fully confident there. If you cannot be confident in a man as a husband prospect that those things are 100% man, 0% women decided, then you have a problem.

Ah, crud, I want to say more but my little girl needs attention. Anyone else up to maybe elaborate more? Its welcomed.

About three days ago I got into a little argument on why men are much more dominant than their female counter parts.

Allow yourself to make a journey through history and you will find many answers to your question. Women have been forced to stay away from many social aspects of life and that is why people say that men are more dominant over women. This has been true for a long, long while and only in the past 20 years have things really started to change and tilt towards women. Nowadays women are somehow seen as "equal" of men, but even with laws saying that, some men still have no desire what so ever to accept that. Thousands of years of evolution that put men to the top of the hierarchy won't be swept away by 20 years of changes. The world is changing and women do win more ground every day, but there is still a long path until women will actually not be dominated by men.

Although these are only social facts, let's see some other "funny" facts:

1. Women are less physically strong than men, but women have a better immune system because they are child carriers and the nature has given them better defense against disease. Let's put this way: if a deadly virus would spread around the world, more women than men will survive.

2. Men do have a bigger brain than women, but women have a more advanced connection between the left and right hemisphere. Women can use both sides at the same time and multitask. Men can't...

domokunrox wrote:I will do a proper exegesis here. I admit, I left the verses without context to see who tries to run with it. Lol, I am sorry. So bad. Anyway let's look back in Genesis.

(NASB)Genesis 2:18
Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

I want to emphasize this. God said he will make a HELPER suitable for him. He didn't say a co-op, authority, manager, or something to that effect.

(NASB)Genesis 2:22
The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

I want to also emphasize this. She was made from the rib of the man. This is significant for everyone to understand. He didn't create women from his foot to stand over her. Didn't create women from his skull for her to be above him. From the rib carries great significance because your ribs are there to PROTECT you.

(NASB)Genesis 3:1-5
Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, ''You shall not eat from any tree of the garden''?" [2] The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; [3] but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ''You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.''" [4] The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! [5] "For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.

So here we are at the chunk of critical text. Here is the very first lie ever told. Guess who got lied to?
The first lie need to be examined. This is classically known as APPEAL TO EMOTION. The very weakness the the serpent knew he could expose. Key thing to take from this is EMOTION. Keep that in mind.

(NASB)Genesis 3:6, 12-13
When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate. [12] The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." [13] Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate."

Now, as much as pretty much everyone women wants to also say "well, the man ate, too. He's no angel". Its true, he did BUT where does it say that man didn't believe God when he told him that he will surely die? He believed it, but seeing that SHE didn't DIE from EATING IT. He was deceived BY the WOMEN who was not dead. Also, in the previous quote and anywhere else in the bible, where does it say that MAN would have eaten from the tree if the serpent told the lie? Nowhere, and as much as it SOUNDS sexist and as much as women detest this. The women admitted to being at fault.

Now some may still be saying "the man still sinned, too!". Nobody denies that. However, this approach to reasoning is still fallacious. Its called the Tu quoque fallacy. Objectively, the women's weakness is emotional appeals, and the man's weakness was looking at the fact that the women was not dead and objectively decided he would not die.

So let's go ahead and look at the punishment.

(NASB)Genesis 3:16-17
To the woman He said, "I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you." [17] Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ''You shall not eat from it''; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life.

So, here we are. Women punishment entails a few things INCLUDING your desire will be FOR YOUR HUSBAND and he will RULE OVER YOU.

Harsh? I would imagine its harsh and women don't like it. You think that's bad?

Man's punishment is the earth is cursed now. You may be saying, "well, that's not as harsh as our punishment". Wrong. Its worst. Something goes wrong, its mans fault. Earthquake? Kills people. Man's fault. Drought causes food shortage? People die. Mans fault.

Some may still detest this. "I don't care. No man is going to rule over me. I am doing it my way".
Fine. However, let me clarify what a MAN who puts God first is. A MAN who puts God first should be worthy to follow his leadership. It is commanded for the man to love his wife as Christ loved us. Who has the authority in that relationship? The church over Christ? Or Christ's authority over us?

Now, let me be clear in saying that women are not to worship men as if they were Christ. They are tue authority over their wife. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, there may be someone still detesting, "but I can't follow man. That's simply not right, fair, etc, etc".

Can I suggest something? Perhaps your not in a relationship with a man, but rather you are in a relationship with a little boy. So, I suggest then that if you're not married to find a man who love's God and puts God first, because you will respect him and you wont have much problem with him authority over you. If you're married to a little boy, unfortunately, you'll have HELP him grown up to be a MAN because his father didn't teach him how to be a MAN after God's heart. In this case, I sympathize with women, but the best you can do ask God to help you. Unfortunately young women these days are not taking heed to the warnings of the bible of relationships with unbelievers.

I am not suggesting its impossible to do. Afterall, I am a good example of it, and I am not saying this to merely puff up my chest here. I had to grow up. Sure, sometimes I am lazy and the trash needs taking out and I need my wife to get after me from time to time. However, all that Godly stuff. Important family decisions. That's my terroritory, and my wife is fully confident there. If you cannot be confident in a man as a husband prospect that those things are 100% man, 0% women decided, then you have a problem.

Ah, crud, I want to say more but my little girl needs attention. Anyone else up to maybe elaborate more? Its welcomed.

And no where does it say that man wouldn't have eaten of the tree would the devil had tempted him. Eve was ruled over by her husband as HER punishment.
Galatians 3:28- There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus
And this is a Christian website people. Study the way Jesus treated women.

Tina, I can certainly understand your frustration here. Especially with some of the answers given.
The bible makes it clear that the three guilty parties were to be punished for their part in the "fall of man".

Genesis 3:14-19 14 The LORD God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,
Cursed are you more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you will go,
And dust you will eat
All the days of your life;
15 And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her seed;
He shall [d]bruise you on the head,
And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
16 To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain [e]in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.”

17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;

Cursed is the ground because of you;
In [f]toil you will eat of it
All the days of your life.
18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you;
And you will eat the [g]plants of the field;
19 By the sweat of your face
You will eat bread,
Till you return to the ground,
Because from it you were taken;
For you are dust,
And to dust you shall return.”

The serpent, Adam, and Eve, were each punished. They were the only ones guilty, and were the only ones punished. Adam went from living in the paradise of eden, and eating fruit from the garden, that God freely provided, to being banished from the garden, and having to work the ground outside the garden, in order to eat.
Eve's pain in childbirth was greatly multiplied, and HER husband was to rule over her. Saying this is justification for ALL husbands to rule over ALL wives, is from reading something into the text that isn't there, IMO.

And the serpent was punished as well.

All guilty parties were punished.

Whatever culture says about women being less than men, isn't gotten from taking scripture in its proper context.

Tina wrote:And no where does it say that man wouldn't have eaten of the tree would the devil had tempted him.

This is fallacious reasoning, once again. Its called Tu quoque and speculations and "what if's" do not make someone guilty of that particular proposition. The serpent did not tempt the man because it would not have worked. The serpent choose the correct lie and told it to the emotionally appealing woman. Plain and simple. If you think it was just coincidence, than I can't help you further.

Tina wrote:Eve was ruled over by her husband as HER punishment.

Incorrect. All sins carry the same punishment. To say that her punishment is different is like saying your sins are not as bad as hers.
To say that her punishment is only hers is like saying you don't experience pain during childbirth or will not experience pain.

Again, let me clarify. I am not saying you have "inherited" Eve's sin. Thats fallacious. It is because of YOUR sin that you are separated from God. That carries consequences here on earth, no reconciliation with God carries consequences after life on earth.

Tina wrote:Galatians 3:28- There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus

Its a great verse. Needs more context. I've heard people use this verse to justify homosexuality as well. Its fallacious to read this in the context you are trying to put it in. People are different, and theres nothing wrong with being different. However, being indifferent with God IS WRONG. Biblically, the provision is for the MAN to LEAD his wife spiritually.

Also, did you know that Christians are in fact Jews? We are HIS people.
Romans 2
28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Tina wrote:And this is a Christian website people. Study the way Jesus treated women.

Of course it is. Yes, Jesus had interaction and put importance with women. Absolutely! However, on spiritual matters, men are commanded to be the spiritual leader in the marriage. EXACTLY like how Jesus is OUR leader in the SPIRITUAL marriage we have with Christ. Lets look again at that passage.

Ephesians 5:22-30
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church [a]in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body.

Husbands are called to be on a higher plane of responsibility. 100% man 0% woman decided. It is not the body that makes the decisions, the head does.

RickD wrote:The serpent, Adam, and Eve, were each punished. They were the only ones guilty, and were the only ones punished.

Adam went from living in the paradise of eden, and eating fruit from the garden, that God freely provided, to being banished from the garden, and having to work the ground outside the garden, in order to eat.
Eve's pain in childbirth was greatly multiplied, and HER husband was to rule over her. Saying this is justification for ALL husbands to rule over ALL wives, is from reading something into the text that isn't there, IMO.

And the serpent was punished as well.

All guilty parties were punished.

Whatever culture says about women being less than men, isn't gotten from taking scripture in its proper context.

Not purposely disagreeing with you, but I think your should rethink it over again. On spiritual matters, husbands are called to a higher plane of responsibility and authority over his household. For example, its my responsibility to show my wife and that she recognizes God's doing in our lives. She just started a higher paying job Monday. Last week, when she got the job offer and accepted it. I asked her, "do you know why you got the job?" She said because God knows our needs and God knows we wanted to save money for Alexandra's college fund. He knows our hearts and that we will raise a child who will glorify him with her life. She never had answers like this until God dominated MY LIFE entirely and became the leader God wanted me to be for my family.

I am not saying women cannot be good leaders and God loving people. Biblically, however, husbands are to be the leader. We're not trying to stomp on our wives. We're simply fulfilling our obligations to God to love our wives. Even as far as spiritually defend them from others. Why are women up in arms against this? That isn't sound Christianity. Thats satan himself doing his best to create destruction where he has been doing it recently. The family unit.

My wife's sister abandoned her faith in Christ, and I've gone as far as stepping in to defend my mother in law from her misguided "spirituality". In fact, I've had to defend all my in laws because nobody else is trained in apologetics. Thats satan's lies coming in and trying to destroy my wife's family.

Crap, I gotta go again. Anyone want to jump in? Feel free.

domokunrox wrote:

Tina wrote:And no where does it say that man wouldn't have eaten of the tree would the devil had tempted him.

This is fallacious reasoning, once again. Its called Tu quoque and speculations and "what if's" do not make someone guilty of that particular proposition. The serpent did not tempt the man because it would not have worked. The serpent choose the correct lie and told it to the emotionally appealing woman. Plain and simple. If you think it was just coincidence, than I can't help you further.

Tina wrote:Eve was ruled over by her husband as HER punishment.

Incorrect. All sins carry the same punishment. To say that her punishment is different is like saying your sins are not as bad as hers.
To say that her punishment is only hers is like saying you don't experience pain during childbirth or will not experience pain.

Again, let me clarify. I am not saying you have "inherited" Eve's sin. Thats fallacious. It is because of YOUR sin that you are separated from God. That carries consequences here on earth, no reconciliation with God carries consequences after life on earth.

Tina wrote:Galatians 3:28- There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus

Its a great verse. Needs more context. I've heard people use this verse to justify homosexuality as well. Its fallacious to read this in the context you are trying to put it in. People are different, and theres nothing wrong with being different. However, being indifferent with God IS WRONG. Biblically, the provision is for the MAN to LEAD his wife spiritually.

Also, did you know that Christians are in fact Jews? We are HIS people.
Romans 2
28For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter; and his praise is not from men, but from God.

Tina wrote:And this is a Christian website people. Study the way Jesus treated women.

Of course it is. Yes, Jesus had interaction and put importance with women. Absolutely! However, on spiritual matters, men are commanded to be the spiritual leader in the marriage. EXACTLY like how Jesus is OUR leader in the SPIRITUAL marriage we have with Christ. Lets look again at that passage.

Ephesians 5:22-30
22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.
25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church [a]in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body.

Husbands are called to be on a higher plane of responsibility. 100% man 0% woman decided. It is not the body that makes the decisions, the head does.

RickD wrote:The serpent, Adam, and Eve, were each punished. They were the only ones guilty, and were the only ones punished.

Adam went from living in the paradise of eden, and eating fruit from the garden, that God freely provided, to being banished from the garden, and having to work the ground outside the garden, in order to eat.
Eve's pain in childbirth was greatly multiplied, and HER husband was to rule over her. Saying this is justification for ALL husbands to rule over ALL wives, is from reading something into the text that isn't there, IMO.

And the serpent was punished as well.

All guilty parties were punished.

Whatever culture says about women being less than men, isn't gotten from taking scripture in its proper context.

Not purposely disagreeing with you, but I think your should rethink it over again. On spiritual matters, husbands are called to a higher plane of responsibility and authority over his household. For example, its my responsibility to show my wife and that she recognizes God's doing in our lives. She just started a higher paying job Monday. Last week, when she got the job offer and accepted it. I asked her, "do you know why you got the job?" She said because God knows our needs and God knows we wanted to save money for Alexandra's college fund. He knows our hearts and that we will raise a child who will glorify him with her life. She never had answers like this until God dominated MY LIFE entirely and became the leader God wanted me to be for my family.

I am not saying women cannot be good leaders and God loving people. Biblically, however, husbands are to be the leader. We're not trying to stomp on our wives. We're simply fulfilling our obligations to God to love our wives. Even as far as spiritually defend them from others. Why are women up in arms against this? That isn't sound Christianity. Thats satan himself doing his best to create destruction where he has been doing it recently. The family unit.

My wife's sister abandoned her faith in Christ, and I've gone as far as stepping in to defend my mother in law from her misguided "spirituality". In fact, I've had to defend all my in laws because nobody else is trained in apologetics. Thats satan's lies coming in and trying to destroy my wife's family.

Crap, I gotta go again. Anyone want to jump in? Feel free.

You might be the spiritual leader in ur life, but GOD is the spiritual leader in mine. What about single Christian women? Are they incapable of being close to GOD due to the lack of a husband? No. And I know more about GOD than my fiancé does ( I've been teaching him ) and yet I am the woman. But according to you, the male should always be in charge so I guess me being the more spiritual one and teaching my fiancé about GOD makes me doing Satan's work. I think not. Your relationship is different from my relationship. Women fight against " male dominance" because we truly are equal beings and yet unique. Jesus died for you the same way He died for me. We are worth the same exact price. Women fight against men thinking they have some sort of "divine right" to control or think they are better, smarter, or superior to women.They are not. In that verse, Christ clearly said we are all the same in His eyes.

Tina, you seriously did not comprehend my reply.

Pretty much everything you said I never claimed and contrary to scripture to boot.
Never did I say single women cannot be close to God or anything if that sort. Stay on topic, please.

2nd, you say that my relationship is different from yours. While this is plainly obvious,this doesn't exclude your future marriage and your future husband to STEP UP to to be the head of a christian family. This is clearly in the scripture and to deny him from taking this position due to your feminist crusade for "equality" is contrary to scripture. It really is that plain and simple.

If God is leading your future husband, and your future husband is leading you, what exactly is the problem?

They control you? You mean like how God wants to be in control of our lives?
Their smarter then you? You mean like how God is smarter then us?
better and superior to us? You mean like how God is compared to us?

We are instead the same? You mean we can decide things for ourselves instead of God?

Think about it again.

domokunrox wrote:Tina, you seriously did not comprehend my reply.

Pretty much everything you said I never claimed and contrary to scripture to boot.
Never did I say single women cannot be close to God or anything if that sort. Stay on topic, please.

2nd, you say that my relationship is different from yours. While this is plainly obvious,this doesn't exclude your future marriage and your future husband to STEP UP to to be the head of a christian family. This is clearly in the scripture and to deny him from taking this position due to your feminist crusade for "equality" is contrary to scripture. It really is that plain and simple.

If God is leading your future husband, and your future husband is leading you, what exactly is the problem?

They control you? You mean like how God wants to be in control of our lives?
Their smarter then you? You mean like how God is smarter then us?
better and superior to us? You mean like how God is compared to us?

We are instead the same? You mean we can decide things for ourselves instead of God?

Think about it again.

I'm not going to let a fellow sinful human be the leader of my spiritual life. If GOD needs me for something, GOD will lead me there. Not man. If you want to continue to believe that just because you have male genitals that you are above women then their is nothing I could say that could change your ( or any other "dominant" males ) arrogance. GOD bless you on your life journey.

A Tu quoque fallacy does absolutely nothing to exclude you from scripture.

You trivialize this by making a ridiculous statement that we are given authority over women just because we have male genitalia.

Then clearly, you directly called God arrogant by critizing the scripture he gave us. Why is it man's fault that we are told to love our wives? Why is it our fault we are told to be the head of the wife?

Its the God breathed scripture's words, not mine.

Finally, I have to ask. You say God bless me on my life journey. What "God" are you talking about? Surely you're mistaken. We clearly don't agree. I respectfully say no thanks to that blessing, that "God" you worship wont be good for my soul.

I will love my wife the way God intended me to love her. I will stumble and make mistakes, but I will put my honest effort to God to love her.

domokunrox wrote:A Tu quoque fallacy does absolutely nothing to exclude you from scripture.

You trivialize this by making a ridiculous statement that we are given authority over women just because we have male genitalia.

Then clearly, you directly called God arrogant by critizing the scripture he gave us. Why is it man's fault that we are told to love our wives? Why is it our fault we are told to be the head of the wife?

Its the God breathed scripture's words, not mine.

Finally, I have to ask. You say God bless me on my life journey. What "God" are you talking about? Surely you're mistaken. We clearly don't agree. I respectfully say no thanks to that blessing, that "God" you worship wont be good for my soul.

I will love my wife the way God intended me to love her. I will stumble and make mistakes, but I will put my honest effort to God to love her.

The "GOD" I am talking about is the Heavenly Father of Jesus Christ. The GOD I am talking is the GOD of Abraham. I said "GOD bless you on your life journey as a sign of respect to agree that we disagree, and as a sincere sign of Christian love. I was being sincere, sir. If you want to be hateful, then don't accept it. It's your choice, but I'll still say, GOD bless you.