Women need to shut up and sit down

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 07:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar

it wouldn't be God who would be protecting her, it would be man. heck, you read the bible, and you might even come to the conclusion that the women's salvation even depends on the man bowing to God.


If anyone reaches this conclusion, they are absolutely wrong.


there's kind of a conflict between Jesus's words...."My sheep know my voice and obey only me"....and "wives, obey your husband in all things." don't ya think?


When the Apostles were ordered by the Pharasees to stop preaching, they said, Obeying God superseeded any orders or laws of men.


(Acts 5:27-30) 27 So they brought them and stood them in the San′he·drin hall. And the high priest questioned them 28 and said: “We positively ordered YOU not to keep teaching upon the basis of this name, and yet, look! YOU have filled Jerusalem with YOUR teaching, and YOU are determined to bring the blood of this man upon us.” 29 In answer Peter and the [other] apostles said: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men. 30. . .


This would have also applied to any female disciples of Christ.

A womans salvation is not dependant on any man, the Bible makes it clear that in Gods eyes regarding this, He looks at Men & Women impartially.


(Galatians 3:28-29) 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor freeman, there is neither male nor female; for YOU are all one [person] in union with Christ Jesus. 29 Moreover, if YOU belong to Christ, YOU are really Abraham’s seed, heirs with reference to a promise.




[edit on 12-10-2007 by Sparky63]

[edit on 12-10-2007 by Sparky63]




posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   
How hard is it to read the Bible?

Start at the beginning
1 Corinthians 14

1Follow after charity, and desire spiritual gifts, but rather that ye may prophesy (teach).

The subject of 1 Corinthians 14 is about the gift of teaching Gods word. You must be smart enough to pick up the subject of any book, and chapter of the Bible. You remember Who-What-When-Where-How don’t you.

34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

This book is written the Who, The Corinthians, and where being taught how to preach or TEACH. Because they had not been doing so well at the time.

The Law in the day, was when someone was prophesying (teaching) everyone else was to listen, and not speak out. Remember at the time, the Bible would have had to been hand written, therefore people would have walked for days just to here the word. They often times would stand for days listing to the teachers, reading the word (Bible) out loud.

34Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

Means don’t let them chatter, while the Bible is being read and the teacher is teaching the Bible. You read to much into it. Read the whole chapter, before you judge God. He loves all of his children.

Look at history, Many Women have been Profits (teachers) Deborah, Holda, and the three Daughters, of another profit were teachers.

38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


Colossians 3
1If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.

Colossians is written to The Colossians, and if you read the third book it deals with How to live as a Christian Plain and simple.

18Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
To submit is to be loyal, having no other lovers. Like the lord doesn’t want you to have any other gods.
To submit is to be faithful to your husband. At the time Colossians was written it was acceptable for the Colossian women to have other lovers. This statement was merely telling the women of that day to be with there husbands. If that is not sinking in the read 19

19Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.

Not bitter for what they had already done. Remember when this was written Christ had only been gone for a couple of years, and the Church was new. So hold no Grudges against what had already happened. If you read the whole book Colossians 3 you would have gotten it.


A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5

5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

Read the whole book of Deuteronomy, you would understand they are talking sexually. Women don’t take the part of a man in any sexual acts.
and Men don't take the part of a Women.

By the way. In the day of Deuteronomy men wore dresses. So if a woman today wears a Dress is she dressing like a man.

People read the book. Don’t read the Verse. It makes you sound really unintelligent.

Pastor Doug L. Kohl



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


This simply talks about the role of women in church. The fact is the so called emancipation of women and women's lib. has not been particularly pleasant for women and it has been especially devastating to the family. But then according to Aaron Russo that was the plan all along
video.google.com...

This scripture doesn't claim men are better or more beloved than women, only that women have different roles, which do not include wielding authority over men in the church for the religious reasons stated. However if you bothered to read more deeply into the scriptures you would find this verse by the same author I might add,



28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.


The Bible was the first book anywhere to teach the equality of man, woman and all races before God. That my friends was a RADICAL teaching for the first century. So before you cast aspersions on the Bible, learn the whole story.



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 03:57 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 


and yet in the same book it teaches racism, slavery, and misogyny...
which is because it's a contradictory book

hell, if everyone is so damn equal, why'd god order those genocides?

and yes, the bible does say that men > women
quite clearly.
in the same book where it says it's an "abomination" that men have long hair



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by SevenThunders
 



Originally posted by SevenThunders
This simply talks about the role of women in church. The fact is the so called emancipation of women and women's lib. has not been particularly pleasant for women and it has been especially devastating to the family. But then according to Aaron Russo that was the plan all along


Are you serious, giving them the right to vote, the right to be equal and have a right to speak up for themselves is a bad thing. Its mind numbing propaganda, you believe this stuff, really?


The Bible was the first book anywhere to teach the equality of man, woman and all races before God. That my friends was a RADICAL teaching for the first century. So before you cast aspersions on the Bible, learn the whole story.


The whole story has a beginning where women were below men and needed to shut up and sit down, a middle where they needed to shut up and sit down, or be killed for choosing to live in sin, or to marry one that rapes them, and the end where you say the bible preaches equality.

Its one or the other or Both??? Contradiction abound my friend. Whether you chose to see it or not.



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I am a woman and I like the Bible very much, it is just the right size to prop up my broken table leg


Seriously though, it would have to be my opinion that the reason the Bible was written for men, by men, and advocates keeping the female gender down and undermined is this simple:
Secretly, perhaps even subconciously, men are terrified of women, always have been, always will be. I mean, come on, if God existed, it is pretty darn obvious what sex he favours. Women of course, duh, we got the multiple orgasms.




posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
I’m not posting this to offend women. I don’t in anyway agree with the title of this thread, but from my research this is the opinion of the holy bible towards women. The conspiracy is that millions of women believe in the bible, but just how many know it’s view of them. I’m interested in the opinion of members and of women and of Christian women members regarding what the bible states.

This IMHO is disturbing to say the least. I personally enjoy a strong willed woman, that will not submit to me easily, but has a mind of her own, with her own opinions and strengths. To me the bible wishes you to be mindless and weak.


34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 1 Corinthians 14:34

1A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. 12I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13For Adam was formed first, then Eve. 14And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. 15But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. I TIMOTHY 2:11-15

18Wives, submit to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. Colossians 3:18

22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. EPHESIANS 5:22-24

A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this. Deuteronomy 22:5


There are Many more.

I got the verses here biblegateway
It seems insane to follow a book that has such a low opinion of women.
What say you?





O.K. Religion in general dis-allows women to teach to the congragation. You think christianity is "bad", take a look at judism, islam, hinduism. Only in the christian are women teaching in the congragation. Wheather or not we agree with what the bible say is inconsiquecial. It is only natural for a man to take on the leading role in the family. You can't have two leaders in the same household. It won't work. So someone has to be the leader, that is man, and a man feels confident enough to take on this role and a women is comfrotable in her position. I have had pleanty of girlfriends who would have it no other way. As a matter of fact, women find strong men attractive. When was the last time you felt attracted to a woman for her leadership and authority over you? That's not a natural attraction for a man to have unless he is homosexual. So in religion it is written, and in atheism, it is a natural attraction of the sexes. JMHO.



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by exitestablishment
 



Originally posted by exitestablishment
O.K. Religion in general dis-allows women to teach to the congragation. You think christianity is "bad", take a look at judism, islam, hinduism. Only in the christian are women teaching in the congragation. Wheather or not we agree with what the bible say is inconsiquecial.


Ok Paragraphs can be fun. The topic is about how the bible views women, not the other religions you posted. If you wish to discuss them thats fine, I have no problems arguing against them as well, because they were also written by men, for men, insecure men at that.


It is only natural for a man to take on the leading role in the family. You can't have two leaders in the same household. It won't work. So someone has to be the leader, that is man, and a man feels confident enough to take on this role and a women is comfrotable in her position. I have had pleanty of girlfriends who would have it no other way. As a matter of fact, women find strong men attractive.


You are assuming that men are dominant by nature. Dominance is not determined by the sex of a individual. There are dominant men and women, just as there are submissive men and women. The correct term is that most women are attracted to dominant men, and visa versa.


When was the last time you felt attracted to a woman for her leadership and authority over you? That's not a natural attraction for a man to have unless he is homosexual. So in religion it is written, and in atheism, it is a natural attraction of the sexes. JMHO.


So your saying that if a man is submissive towards women, he is a homosexual?

You are speaking about human nature as it's a black or white, but personally there are many gray areas here.

Truthfully pure dominate or submissive people are rare, most people have traits of both.



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by BooBabe
I am a woman and I like the Bible very much, it is just the right size to prop up my broken table leg


Seriously though, it would have to be my opinion that the reason the Bible was written for men, by men, and advocates keeping the female gender down and undermined is this simple:
Secretly, perhaps even subconciously, men are terrified of women, always have been, always will be. I mean, come on, if God existed, it is pretty darn obvious what sex he favours. Women of course, duh, we got the multiple orgasms.



How do nuts like this even survive???

Good luck in life, all powerful female !
"forever subconciously terrified of women",
AtOK



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   

Ok Paragraphs can be fun. The topic is about how the bible views women, not the other religions you posted. If you wish to discuss them thats fine, I have no problems arguing against them as well, because they were also written by men, for men, insecure men at that.


Insecure men? O.K. Believe what you want. Remember though, everyone has an opinion and all of it amounts to nothing.


You are assuming that men are dominant by nature. Dominance is not determined by the sex of a individual. There are dominant men and women, just as there are submissive men and women. The correct term is that most women are attracted to domiant men, and visa versa.



Yes it is. Men have something called testosterone at much higher levels then woman. Yes, woman have traces. This is ditermined by your gender. Testosterone is the mechinism that determins aggression/dominance.




So your saying that if a man is submissive towards women, he is a homosexual?

You are speaking about human nature as it's a black or white, but personally there are many gray areas here.

Truthfully pure dominate or submissive people are rare, most people have traits of both.



I'm saying if a man is submissive, it's probably due to homosexuality. Of course there are gray areas, but if we focus on them, there will be no disscusion at all. Remove the gray area in this catagory and you have men, the more dominant/aggressive sex. The bible recognizes this and puts the pieces of the puzzle together to come to it's conclusion. It has nothing to do with insecure men. It has everything to do with what is natural, obvious, fitting and what works the best in a relationship.



posted on Oct, 13 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire

Are you serious, giving them the right to vote, the right to be equal and have a right to speak up for themselves is a bad thing. Its mind numbing propaganda, you believe this stuff, really?

The purpose of women's lib. according to Rockefeller was to allow the taxation of both man and woman in the workforce. Thus their tax base doubled.

The second purpose was to deny women their most important function in society, child rearing. This critical and vital function instead was to be turned over to the state. In our case it is handled by government controlled education. That way you all could become conditioned to accept your slavery.

It has been masterful indeed. Child rearing has also been heavily downplayed by the powers that be. They hate women raising children, since it potentially undermines their grip on the minds of the next generation. You should equally be offended at the idea that women are better suited to child rearing than men, but you focused on the supposed superiority of leadership.

It is amazing to me that anyone still entertains the idea that men and women are equal. They are not. That should be obvious by inspection, but more importantly the way their minds work and their strengths and weaknesses are markedly different no matter what some progressive PC enforcer tells you.

As for giving women the vote. It has been a bad decision in the context of government brainwashing, where the woman is indoctrinated to be focused on fluff, ie soap opera material. It is women who will give Hillary the presidency no matter how clearly spelled out her campaign finance violations, her crooked land deals, her illegal wiretapping and her foreign bribes are. In the same way the woman vote brought us our worst president in history, William Jefferson Clinton. I am therefore ambivalent with regards to the virtue of it at the present time, though prior to the post-christian cultural meltdown it made perfect sense.




The whole story has a beginning where women were below men and needed to shut up and sit down, a middle where they needed to shut up and sit down, or be killed for choosing to live in sin, or to marry one that rapes them, and the end where you say the bible preaches equality.

Its one or the other or Both??? Contradiction abound my friend. Whether you chose to see it or not.



Apparently you believe that the role of leader implies an unequal role between leader and follower or a different assessment of worth. That is simply not the case. I believe it is in the Israeli army where the commanding officer is expected to lead the charge into battle and incurs the greatest casualty risk. Would you prefer the leadership role in that context?

It all depends how one functions in the roles assigned. A poor leader exploits his followers in the manner you described. Such things of course were never commanded in the Bible. Indeed if you examine the leadership role in the church or the leadership role between husband and wife, the leader is expected to sacrifice himself for the benefit of his followers. But, many, brainwashed in our current anti-christian culture, can't help but think that it's all negative.

[edit on 13-10-2007 by SevenThunders]



posted on Oct, 14 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   
long before there were any feminist brainwashing.....
there were men "abusing their leadership role".

thus Abagail Adams writing her husband in Philadelphia encouraging him that the founding fathers find it in their hearts to be "kinder to women".

they wanted double taxation? to be able to tax the women's earnings?
friend, the women were in the workforce before that, they were being taxed.....they had children they had to feed and well, during world war 2, their husbands were off sacrificing themselves for another cause!! just who do you think was in the factories working while the men were overseas fighting that war? lol.....who do you think was running the show at home while the guys were out playing war during the revolution?
but, prior to the early start of the feminist movement.....just who earned the wages the women worked for in the factory....THE HUSBAND!!!
Tell me did the factories lock the men within their walls like many did the women and children workers?

you can paint the pretty picture where husband loves his wife, and fullfills her needs first all you want, in the real world.....that's all it is, a pretty picture...with no reality for many. asked what if meant for women to be submisison to the husband, a Southern baptist preacher laughed...well, for one thing, it means that if he doesn't want her to work, she shouldn't be working...
so, I guess, the women should just stay home and listen to her children's cries of hunger if hubby decides his check should go for a new truck but decides he doesn't want her working....ya know, she then doesn't spend as much time at home cleaning up after him and the kiddies, and oh, my god, she expects him to watch the kids some!!

long before the the feminists came, women were opting to work, many because their husbands were opting to spend the money on alchohol, or this or that, and their needs were not being met!

matter of fact, I remember an old testement story from King David who's describing a very industrious women, she's buying a vineyard, and then making wine, amoung a whole mess of other things....never says on things about this women, after she finds the vineyard, running home and asking her husband about it....and, oh, ya, in the end of the story, where is her husband? oh, ya, she's at the gates of the city, chatting with the elders all day.....
incidentally, one of the speeches made by one of these early feminists to the NY State legislature, describes the condition of the time.....and the men were still congregated at the main entrances of the cities, chatting away!!!

I don't have time at the moment to find these two references, but I believe the speech was made by Anthony although it may have been Stanton....I found it on the web if you desire to find it....it also mentions women not earning their check but that being giving to their husbands instead, children being hired out and sent far away without the mother's opinion being heard about it, and both mother and children being beaten..

nope, don't buy it....if it is so natural for women to be submissive then something quite unnatural was there to push them out of the submissive role to begin with. and it would be quite unnatural to think that a women is gonna just sit by in that submissive, dependant role while her kids are beat, or starving, while alchoholic dad is off every day to sit with his drunken buddies at the street corner to gossip about every person that walks by!

but I will tell you what I think....

little children who watch mom submit to this one man, being obedient in all that he says....because well, one was created to be "leader" while the other was created to be "follower" will more than likely be conditioned to accept his position as "slave" as an adult! and that is why the early religion/state had the policy in place.



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


thanks for the suggestion?-i'll ask my wifes permission to give to give her your idea-----oh no! please dont taze me dearrrrrrrrrrrrr



posted on Oct, 15 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by yahn goodey
reply to post by LDragonFire
 


thanks for the suggestion?-i'll ask my wifes permission to give to give her your idea-----oh no! please dont taze me dearrrrrrrrrrrrr


If it's your desire to submit to your woman, then knock your self out buddy.


This is not what this thread is about, it's about the bible teaching that women are below men, that their is a pattern of sexism in the bible, anytime you wanna contribute to this conversation, by all means do so. Of course as long as you have permission from the Wife.





posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
I am not saying I accept any of this but what I do find interesting....
If the bible is not the word of God then none of this matters, but...
and here's the really sexy part, If it is the word of God, when did we get veto power over it?
It's either submit or ignore. Do women DEMAND that God accept their view of the world?
I have heard modern American women are a tad arrogant but this has got to be some kind of record. The word of God as edited and approved by the Women's Association of America. Coming to a church near you soon.
Will Jesus return or will God give in to the demands of the N.O.W. that this time He send a daughter instead of a son? How will the women of America punish Him if He disobeys? Will He be sent to His room or just denied sex?
Real simple. IF there is no God then simply ignore all this nonsense. But if you believe there is then ask yourself if you really believe He seeks your approval? If God exist I doubt heaven is a democracy and/or that public opinion polls carry any real weight. YOU think He is wrong. AND? SO?



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
in the same book where it says it's an "abomination" that men have long hair




Hmm...



I rest my case.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


So how is it woman can be the glory of man without being the glory of God? I see this as a revelation as to how we are look at woman, the same way in which God looks at us.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by pstrron
 


pstrron you get it, that is so awesome. I hope more people look at what it is you posted because, it so rings to the truth of how things biblically are meant to be handled. Is alot of corrupted today? certainly, power does that to gain more power.



posted on Oct, 20 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I think MEN NEED TO SHUT TF UP AND SIT DOWN...

Our politicians who are mostly men and our supposed leaders are stuffing up the planet.
We need LESS men in positions of power not more.

Mens egos make them think they KNOW IT ALL when a lot know next to nothing past their peckers.

God made a mistake by annointing men leaders. He obviously is a very stupid deity.

Thank you , that is all.



posted on Oct, 21 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Jovi1
 


it says that women were made FOR men...

hmm...
i made this gift for you
the package is for you

...doesn't seem to imply an equal partnership





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join