Pinklight

Hi Rose,
lol
You tell em!

He also claims that it’s deliberate in the Bible for a woman’s submission to be mentioned first, because it’s more important than a husband’s job to love.

Yeah, I saw the person you name and the woman there mention the fact that the wife is told to submit before the husband is told to love. This is an example of something said which didn’t make much sense. Why make something out of the order in which Paul wrote the instructions to the wife and husband? There is no reason for that other than to place emphasis on the wife’s submission.

And I was just spammed, lol. It’s an honor, pinklight.

That’s the way to look at it lol

The two of them will uphold BDSM clubs sooner than they’ll uphold any kind of equality.

Honestly, based on all I’ve read over there and the comments, the place is not clean. It is very shameful, and I don’t think the blog can be considered “Christian” in any real sense of the term. I think it’s pagan and not a good place for those trying to grow in Christlikeness.
I wanted to post there for the benefit of any.

The woman there speaks of how freeing it is to have someone else make all the decisions and take responsibility;

I’m sure life is made easier for alot of women who decide to hand over responsibility to a man, and give a man the power to make final decisions. But the philosophy of “I’ll take the easier road” never jived with me.

I don’t recall seeing that as men’s jobs.

Right, it’s definately not a Biblical teaching that the man is to carry most the responsibility and make the final desicions.

Cheryl’s right, they judge the success of relationships by sex and shock value, not Biblical doctrine.

I think the teachings there are on the verge of something very dark. As I said, it is not a clean place. I went there not caring what was going to be thrown at me. There just is no value in most of the behavior displayed over there.

One woman, “Suz”, amusingly accused me of telling men to hand over their manhood; I’ve found it’s definitely a site to shake the dust from.

There were lots of silly accussations. Most the time, the responses didn’t even make much sense. Definitely a different planet over there lol

Was just banned “for promoting Nestorianism.”

lol

They think the term “Christ” refers to Jesus’ divinity, and attempting to point out that such is not the case, I then get acccussed of promoting Nestorianism.

@38 I checked out the link and read the list and the comments. The comments – haha! Two of them I get a kick out of!

New BBC Open Forum:

But are they allowed to teach men how to hide spies and hammer tent pegs through men’s heads?

haha!

Then there’s this one by Lin:

Piper has the position that women can only give directions to men if they can do it without appearing to “instruct” them. I think it goes like this:

You MIGHT want to consider turning
right at the light but, of course, It is YOUR decision and you hold the final trump card on turning right at the light or not.

rotflol

Where are you getting these ideas??

Keep in mind, Rob, that your understanding is a matter of perception and more than likely man’s tradition that you have accepted. The question is, is yours accurate because it is biblicaly provable without a doubt? And fact is, the answer is, “no.”

I have no opinion on this issue, because if the Apostle Paul didn’t make a big deal out of it, neither will I.

*Thumbs up*

The Savior bore the marks of circumcision as he had to fulfill all of God’s law on our behalf.

*thumbs up*

A “beneficial procedure for health”? “We should all favor circumcision for health purposes”?

I’LL bet, we’re dealing with the letter…

Anti-spam “shoe”
If it fits, wear it? lol

Thanks Charles 🙂

Sorry Mark 🙁

• The apostle tells the wife and the husband different things. (This is indisputably in the text itself – the sentences which Peter & Paul address to “husbands” and “wives” are different)

Yes, he tells the wife and the husband different things, but he also tells then the same thing – submit (v21). So?

And it all ties back into the idea that God is male. There, sex is part of the divine image, and females are less like God than males because God is male.

I think that the idea that sex was made in God’s image has caused a bit of confusion for many. Every time I re-read Genesis 1, I cannot escape that while humanity is said to have been made in God’s image, male and female (the same Hebrew terms used for the animals, saying that they are amle and female) are not. Even N.T. Wright use to believe that sex was made in God’s image, but then animals would be sharing in that aspect of the divine image. It has never made sense to me, yet this (however it’s worked out or explained) IS the reason why ‘CBMW’ type understand a spiritual difference between men and women. Even when I read egal books in the past, they were not clear on whether or not sex was part of the divine image which kept the water muddy.

That’s helps alot. Thanks!

Two cents:

John8:44

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

Who did the devil murder? The man and the woman, or just the woman? Adam was not deceived.

The devil was a deliberate deceiver, so these who Jesus accusses of being of their father the devil, knew better?

Yeah, I’m trying to smile as I’ve feel so ‘left out’, as I could NOT enter the door of the instituion, at least not without giving up myself (humanity) and my God at the same time…

‘I left what I call The Institution several years ago. I’ve found that most churches are following flawed paradigms for one reason or another, but in recent years there has been an explosion of very dangerous and harmful trends. It is truly rare to find fellowship with all but a handful in our communities. So many of us consider these online venues our real “church”.’

Thank you.

Let no egal or comp judge me. I was never even able to align myself with the dreadful ‘institution’.

It’s interesting that in the original there is nothing written about what belongs to the leaders. Yet in the NIV we read ‘their’ possesive case, ‘authority’. That verse is not even about what leaders have/posses but in part about what they ‘do’ but part of the verse has been made into being about them, as in what they have which changes the color of what they ‘do.’ Interesting.

‘to their authority’

That’s at least 3 words added to the original.

‘Translation is an art, the translator(s) that used “authority” thought that was what was meant, for whatever reason.’

I understand that translation can be an art. But the rest does not compute, Don. How does one get ‘authority’ out of what they think is meant in the Greek when there is nothing written there to indicate even such a notion?

Why has that verse been corrupted by human thought?

It is an assumption that if one spiritualy leads that therefore they spiritualy have authority over those they lead. Why has the assumption as seen in corrupt ‘translation’ been made? Can the addition of word ‘authority’ even be considered translation at all? If the idea of leaders having authority simply because they are leaders does not even exist in the text, then it cannot be ‘translation’ but rather more like first reading into the text and then literaly a thought transference into it.

That a hierarchal Trinity is applied to marraige between a man and woman, adult spouses rather than fathers and sons, is amazing to me.  Comps have taken one type of relationship and applied it to something entirely different,

If gender hierarchalists are going to apply a (false) Trinitarian hierarchy to male and female marriage then why DO THEY NOT apply it to fathers and sons?

Should not sons eternaly submit to their fathers? Should not father obey and give their sons command for the duration of their lives?

An eternal patriarchal arrangement between father and son is the immediate obvious application as long as we are making false ones.

‘And it’s a bit disappointing to hear that these arguments are going on in mainstream churches.  I would expect them from the snake-handlers, but not from educated Christians.’

Hey! Now that makes sense!

When I read Eph 5, I tend to incorporate what the body IS as said in 1 Co 12 and when I do this I am reluctant to accept a head/body metaphor.

The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body (eye, hand, head, feet etc).

14Now the body is not made up of one part but of many.

18But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, but one body.
 21The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!”

Either way head/body (a picture of unity) metaphor is closer (at least in Eph 5) than kephale being used as a metaphor to mean ‘leader’ or ‘ruler’ since there is no contextual support for that whatsoever in either 1 Co 11 or Eph 5.

‘They were one flesh to start with and God brought them back together in a one-flesh union in marriage.’

This gives me pause for a ‘head/body’ metaphor. I am reluctant with a head/body metaphor being a description of the result of the above. Like I said, I can see it as possible in Eph 5, but it’s not ‘the script’ as far as I can see.

‘Paul uses the term “kephale” or “head” in a metaphor that must include the rest of the metphor “body” to allow it to make sense.  Let’s reason through this metaphor from 1 Cor. 11:3 and see if we can make sense of Paul’s use.’

Let me start with the above.

I don’t see where Paul is using ‘kephale’ IN a metaphor in 1 Co 11, but AS a metaphor, though I can see that he could be in Eph 5 since he says the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body but I don’t see that this MUST be the case. In Eph 5, I understand kephale used as a metaphor to mean ‘source of unity’ in context, as it is about marriage (plus a word study I did long ago supported this very strongly) and in 1 Co 11, I see kephale used as a metaphor to mean ‘source of life’ as the context is about glory and origin. I’ll just stop here for now.

There is the light of the world who is Jesus and the light of life which is what followers of Jesus have, and if one walks in darkness they cannot see when doing this and when one walks in or practices sin they are rebelling against God. Those who walk in darkness cannot see and they practice sin which is their way of life because they do not have the light of life.

John 8:12
12When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Matt 15:18
18But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person.

‘My understanding of “hand over to satan” meant Paul had him disfellowshipped and he was now in the pagan world where satan ruled.  It is a dramatic use of words, that is for sure.’

This is my understanding also.

In fact abuse was so high in 3 different relationships for me (one in particular that is most important) that I had no choice but to cut the people off and have them put in the ‘out’. Within a flash each were.

Regarding one of the three, after months had passed I had to restore the person. As fast as they were put ‘out’ they were restored back in. I had no doubt that these ‘cut off’s’ were necessary.

There’s more power and authority (not the comp kind) that we have that many don’t even know we have, by faith and I’m talking about the real kind, the kind that could cause fear in reaction.

It has been my experience that I have this at my request, but I never take advantage of it, and try to go other routes and only use this when there are no other options.