~ archived since 2018 ~

Misogyny is a sin?!! https://www.russellmoore.com/2018/02/12/teach-boys-respect-women/

Kashmon777 · 2018-02-13T15:07:04+00:00

I can't believe it This guy is an SJW telling Christians supporting trump is a sin and that we need to train boys into believing misogyny is a sin. Funny...

Kashmon777

February 13, 2018

3 upvotes

/r/RPChristians

Archived from /r/RPChristians

r/RPChristians is relationship, masculinity, and sex advice from a biblical, yet pragmatic perspective.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/RPChristians archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Misogyny is a sin?!! https://www.russellmoore.com/2018/02/12/teach-boys-respect-women/
Author	Kashmon777
Upvotes	3
Comments	63
Date	February 13, 2018 3:07 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/RPChristians
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/RPChristians/comments/7x9zdb/misogyny_is_a_sin/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/RPChristians/misogyny-is-a-sin.302031 https://theredarchive.com/post/302031

Comments

[–]rocknrollchuckMod | 50M | Married 11 yrs2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

First off ... why are you reading this guy's stuff in the first place? Are you really shocked that people in the church would have a pro-women sentiment?

This guy is an SJW telling Christians supporting trump is a sin

He never mentioned trump once in this article. Maybe you're talking about another article? Can't comment on this.

or the misogyny of Jesus who chose 12 MALE disciples...

I think you're confusing misogyny for gender bias. Misogyny involves an actual contempt and dislike of women. I love women. Like Sweeny Todd, I could watch pretty women all day long. /u/Whitified had a beautiful comment a few months back in a post on femininity that would knock your socks off. Misogyny in its common definition is not cool. It might even be a sin. After all, is it right to show contempt for a half of the population that God loves and adores? Gender bias is perfectly appropriate. That's what we're really addressing here - not that God prefers men over women, but that God has certainly throughout history prioritized men in certain positions of authority which have been usurped by women in modern culture.

Are these people really saved? are they really shaped by God?

We've addressed this quite a bit on this sub. The Gospel is not "grace through faith and rejecting feminism." Holding a feminist ideology doesn't disqualify someone from salvation. But it does present an incredible hindrance to someone's ability to bear fruit for God's Kingdom. Are they still made in God's image? Absolutely. Are they doing a poor job of reflecting that image to the world? Absolutely. When the fall happened, that image was broken generally. By embracing blue pill ideologies, they're simply saying that there's a part of the mirror that they're not going to try to fix because they think it looks beautiful as-is.

[–]Kashmon777[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kashmon777[S] -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (47 children) | Copy Link

The operative word there is "believes." If one truly believes the Gospel the way I outlined it in 401 (the whole "killer slides a note under your door" analogy), then yes, they are fine regardless of their mistaken theology.

The issue is that some people claim genuine belief, but turn around and intentionally choose which theologies to believe based on what suits their interests and advantages most. This is evidence that a person is not concerned with the truth, but with his own interests. As such, his "belief" in Christ as savior is equally as shallow as his interests in discerning truth in the Word of God.

Or to be more clear: one cannot claim Jesus and yet reject the Word of God, which John 1 says is Jesus.

So, to those who have read, researched, studied, and come to a resolute conclusion that feminism is good, blue pill ideologies are what Christ intended, and homosexuality is not a sin, etc. - I'm confident their salvation is secure, however misguided they may be. Even more so, to those who learn under such a person and have good reason to trust the conclusions of the person under whom they are learning, I'm confident they're fine too, from a salvation perspective (obviously there are other serious dangers in believing bad theology that I won't get into here).

But when we get people who decide first what they want to believe and then try to find a theological support for it - those people probably won't pass muster on Judgment Day. I can't say for sure, but that's my suspicion. I should add: this is also true of men in the red pill arena. If men come here not looking for truth, but for biblical support for their worldly convictions, that is equally shallow and condemning as those who try to find biblical support for their blue pill convictions. The fact that one or the other happens to stumble across the correct answer doesn't change the fact that his heart was not with Christ in the first place - it was with the idol he has made of his own ideologies.

This is why Jesus says, "Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me." Translation: "If you try to justify your own way of life instead of trying to figure out what I actually expect, you don't love me."

[–]Kashmon777[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

right that makes sense so it is wrong to question if these people are saved even though they preach feminism this confuses me because prior to becoming a Christian I was a full on feminist- got saved I became blue pill essentially and as I studied both the world and the bible more am more red pilll

it just seems like Christians hate anything male or man like and want to weaken them, this really angers me, it is kinda annoying that I have to consider them believers...

some of our friends in my youth group happily are planning to get married with him being a house husband. I was like are you even Christian but apparently that is wrong to ask.

Which got me thinking can I be Christian and have sex with a man? I struggle with homosexual desires and wish I never had to but this confuses me

if people can be Christian and ignore the most obvious stuff about Gender in the bible why not men who want sex out of marriage etc

What should one do, should we still worship with these people?

[–]Willow-girlParticipation Trophy Wife0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Here's my opinion, FWIW. I was not appointed to be the arbiter of the world's morals or values. My job is to do a good job in my own life, to love the people and four-leggeds around me to the best of my ability. Frankly, that pretty much takes up all of my time and energy! I mostly leave the larger theological questions for others to wrestle with, because I don't find it productive to do so.

Everyone can find something objectionable in the Bible, and every other holy book or book of philosophy, and you run the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater if you get hung up on one passage that rubs you the wrong way.

I'm OK with the idea that God may convict different people of different things at different times, and someone else's conviction may be different than my own. For instance, I'm convinced that it's wrong for me to eat meat, so I abstain; I don't want to be the cause of that suffering in the world. But I don't criticize others who aren't convicted in the same way. It may not be wrong for them, and so be it.

Much the same with homosexuality. There are sincere Christians on either side of that line and it's not my place to say who is right or wrong. God did give us a clue, though, and that's to look at the fruits to determine whether a tree is good or bad. So if a person is gay but their life appears to be producing good fruit, over an extended period of time (not, like, 15 minutes, LOL) then I'll take that as evidence that they have chosen light over darkness. And beyond that, what they do in the bedroom or who they do it with is really none of my business anyway, is it? It shouldn't change how I treat or interact with them, so ... .

[–]Kashmon777[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

There's some truth to what she said, but it also leads down a somewhat dangerous theological path if we follow down that road too far. To be clear, and I'll tag her so she can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe /u/Willow-girl has said in the past that she is not a Christian, but does have an appreciation for certain aspects of our faith (sorry if I'm mistaken on this).

The good in what she's saying is that our obligation is to do right by God in our own lives and that this should be unshaken by someone else's failure to live up to their calling. Ultimately we are not the judges of their salvation, so it's not for us to try to condemn people for believing mistaken theology or for engaging in sin and refusing to repent. We can't control someone else - so you do you and let them do them.

She also appropriately acknowledges that the fruit of a person's life is what matters, although I would clarify that Jesus had a very specific intent in saying this: that our fruit is the disciples who are following Jesus because of our lives. Things like being "good, patient, kind, loving," etc. are nice, but they're not the fruit Jesus referenced in Matthew 7. In fact, in the very next passage after the "by their fruit you will recognize them" Jesus cites people who were doing many great things for the kingdom - prophesying, casting out demons, performing miracles, etc., but Jesus says, "I never knew you." Our works are not the "fruit" we are to look for from our lives. But immediately before both of those passages Jesus talks about people walking down the narrow v. wide roads to heaven and hell respectively. Which path you're leading people down is your fruit. If you lead someone down the wide road to hell, you are bearing bad fruit. If you are leading someone down the narrow path to heaven, you are bearing good fruit. It's that simple.

The danger is the implication that people doing "good things" is how we should discern the authenticity of their faith. Non-Christians can fake good all the time. There are countless non-Christians who seem like perfectly wonderful people. But the Bible is clear: "Anything that does not come from faith is sin" (Romans 14:23) and "without faith it is impossible to please God" (Hebrews 11:6).

If we assume that these people are our brothers in Christ simply because they make a verbal profession and have good fruit, yet refuse to repent of otherwise obvious sin, we may miss a critical opportunity to bring someone onto the narrow path who otherwise would have headed for destruction.

We also risk giving such people too much influence in our own lives, potentially leading our own path astray.

And by tacit approval of their sin, or otherwise simply turning a blind eye because they're otherwise good people, and allowing them into church culture, their ideologies (particularly if there are others in the church as well) start to permeate and the church becomes less about preaching truth and more about being culturally sensitive, and ultimately converted away from truth toward culture. This is not a hypothetical threat - it is an actual one that has happened already on a mass scale. This is why Paul says in 1 Cor. 5 that if someone is in unrepentant sin, we have an obligation to cast them out of our community until they either (1) stop identifying themselves as Christian, or (2) repent of their sin.

[–]Willow-girlParticipation Trophy Wife0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

That's a fair criticism, Red. :-) I do things the way I do because I find that keeping my theology really, really simple works best for me. Intelligent people can get themselves into a whale of trouble if they overthink things (and we looooove to overthink things!).

One of the criticisms I've heard leveled against Christianity is that it's impractical in 'the real world' because Jesus wasn't in a position of secular authority and thus wasn't constrained by real-world concerns. For instance, he could tell the woman caught in adultery, "Go and sin no more," and leave it that. He moves on and we never see the eventual outcome. What if she resumes sinning? A judge who tells all the criminals who come before him, "Go and sin no more," probably isn't going to be a judge for very long, and rightfully so.

Well, I'm in the same position as Jesus here, lol. I'm not running anything beyond my own life (which I can barely keep track of sometimes). I can't imagine being (for instance) a pastor and having a church member come to me and say, "Sally So-And-So is sinning; make her stop." I'm sure that kind of stuff happens all the time and more power to the people who have the wisdom and diplomacy to deal with it adequately! Because that ain't me, lol. I'm responsible for working out my own salvation with fear and trembling and I have no inclination to judge the content of other people's souls. Oh, I'll observe their 'fruits' and perhaps make a private judgment as to which side they're on, and adjust my expectations accordingly, but at the end of the day, it's ultimately between them and their Creator. Who am I to judge?!

[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

This is a really good reply. I haven't heard that criticism of Christ's role before.

My gut reaction is two-fold: (1) Jesus did have real-world concerns, he just knew God would meet them apart from his seeking. This is clear from Matthew 6, where he gives his "don't worry about how your needs will be met" speech. And yes, Jesus did have a job too, as everyone knows he was a carpenter. He also lived off of the support of others throughout his active ministry, staying in people's homes, which is how many active missionaries today live. These are practical real-world ways of living in a ministry setting. He modeled both for us because not everyone is called to be a traveling missionary and not everyone is called to have a day job, so he showed that both are appropriate through his lifestyle.

(2) Christians would do right to abandon real-world concerns just like Jesus did - and in the same logical context Jesus did. The spiritual is what matters. So, when he says, "Go and sin no more," he's deferring to God's judgment against her for whatever she may do after the fact, not man's judgment in imposing some legal penalty on her. But we don't see Jesus saying, "Go and sin no more" to the Pharisees. We see him condemning them and engaging in a ministry that undermined their authority, causing severe practical consequence to their power. So, if secular judges had the same divine wisdom as to who could be trusted to "go and sin no more" as compared to those who need to be knocked down a few pegs, I'd bet the secular system would work just as well.

To that end, although Jesus was not exerting physical authority over those who did continue to sin (like the rich young ruler, as a popular example), he does defer to spiritual authority. If human courts looked to God's role as judge as a model, I do believe the world would be in a far, far, far better place. To those who are truly repentant and reformed, God sets them free. To those who are hardened, he sends them to the lake of fire. And these are just for the guilty people (for in the spiritual realm no one is innocent). There would be less prison crowding issues and a greater encouragement for people to reform.

The only point where this becomes impractical is in the fact that a human judge cannot know with definitive certainty whether a person is truly repentant or not. He can only go on his best judgment.

Well, I'm in the same position as Jesus here, lol. I'm not running anything beyond my own life

True, but all men are biblically called to more than our own lives. So, while this works quite appropriately for your purposes, when talking to another man I cannot impart the same sentiment.

but at the end of the day, it's ultimately between them and their Creator. Who am I to judge?!

As to non-believers, you're right - it's not our role to judge. In fact, 1 Cor. 5 specifically says, "Who am I to judge those outside the church?" yet he concludes that it actually is our responsibility to judge those within the church. Of course, as you said, that judgment is often reserved for those within the church who have the authority to do so and not necessarily the casual attender.

[–]Willow-girlParticipation Trophy Wife0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The only point where this becomes impractical is in the fact that a human judge cannot know with definitive certainty whether a person is truly repentant or not. He can only go on his best judgment.

Aye; and there's the rub, eh?

As to non-believers, you're right - it's not our role to judge. In fact, 1 Cor. 5 specifically says, "Who am I to judge those outside the church?" yet he concludes that it actually is our responsibility to judge those within the church. Of course, as you said, that judgment is often reserved for those within the church who have the authority to do so and not necessarily the casual attender.

Well, here's where things get sticky: how do you define 'wicked'? Some things I think we can all agree on; for instance, we might condemn a man caught stealing; we can probably agree he's bad and the church ought to reprimand him in some way. But what if there are gray areas? Maybe he is addicted to drugs and was stealing to support his drug habit. Is he wicked, or is he ill and in need of treatment? What if the act itself is more questionable -- for instance, as the OP alluded to, homosexuality? What if you have a loving couple whose life appears to bear good fruit, but they happen to be of the same sex? Do you vote them off the island?

These kinds of questions are beyond my pay grade, lol. But maybe other people are called to answer them, and that's great -- I wish them well.

[–]Red-Curious2 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Aye; and there's the rub, eh?

Sure, but there are some crimes that imply a hardened heart and others that don't. For example, wanton and intentional murder is pretty clear, for the most part. Stealing from a grocery store ... not so much. From there it's just a matter of repetition: "I've given you grace 3 times now and you've failed each time, so take your sentence." In the meantime, "grace" should always be accompanied by an order of restitution, which is also a biblical concept (see Zaccheus, for example).

how do you define 'wicked'?

I know this needs a lot more explanation, but ... biblically.

Is he wicked, or is he ill and in need of treatment?

Both. Wickedness got him addicted to drugs in the first place.

What if the act itself is more questionable -- for instance, as the OP alluded to, homosexuality? What if you have a loving couple whose life appears to bear good fruit, but they happen to be of the same sex? Do you vote them off the island?

I'm not sure how that's questionable. Unrepentant sin is unrepentant sin. I'm still not sure how you're defining "good fruit," but my guess is that if they're bringing people into a theology of, "You can ignore what the Bible says, just believe in Jesus," then it's not good fruit. If they got married as homosexuals while non-Christians and only afterward found Christ and have repented of their sin and are no longer engaging in intentional homosexual sex or encouraging other people to adopt a "pick and choose" theology, then yeah, they're probably fine ... and I'd say they're even okay to live together as long as they're clear with each other and others who may observe them that there is no longer sexual engagement between the two of them and their bond is merely one of loving affection and mutual support, which I would encourage all believers to have - same sex or not, including two men who are roommates. The term "romantic affection" is really often just code for sexual desire toward someone else. It can also be just a categorization of different other types of desire or affection, but I don't typically think of itself as a thing of its own.

I get that some of this seems gray, and I do believe that gray areas exist. But there are lot fewer of them in the Bible than people would like to admit. Instead, we like to create gray areas as a justification for our behaviors. As long as we can say "there's no way to know for sure," we can feel confident in doing it because it's not definitively wrong. In reality, the Bible says the opposite - that we are "slaves to righteousness" and that all things are "wrong" unless definitively redeemed as "right." And that concept of redemption (and also reconciliation) is powerful enough to cover lots of things, so it's not like we're in some tight little box either.

[–]Willow-girl1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Red-Curious1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Fair point. To be clear, the context of "all things are permissible, but not everything is beneficial" is Paul quoting a philosophical mantra that the Corinthians used to justify their sinfulness in a book where his primary purpose is to rebuke them for that sin. He's trying to show them that by their own philosophy of hyper-grace (or anti-nomianism), there's still a pragmatic value in getting bad behavior under control.

More to the point, Romans 14:23 is clear: "Anything that does not come from faith is sin." Romans 14:14 (same chapter even!) also says, "Nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean." In other words, nothing is inherently sinful - but if we do it for any reason other than faith, then it is sinful. I interpret this to mean that "all things are 'wrong' unless definitively redeemed as 'right'" [and I should have added] by virtue of being done as a product of our faith in Christ. In that sense, if done in faith, nothing is sinful. But doing something while separately having faith does not mean something is done "in faith." So, while "all things are permissible" for the one who is acting in faith, once we leave the realm of "in faith" ... not so much. Most people cannot in good faith steal from their neighbor and say, "I did it for God!" I'm guessing the same is true of homosexuality: "I had to put my penis in that man's butt for God!" But for more innocuous things, like vegging out to TV, there are certainly ways that can be redeemed for God's purposes, as you may meet someone the next day who loves whatever show you watched and you now can build a relationship with someone who needs Jesus. In such a case, if someone's heart is in the right place while doing it, he can "Netflix and chill" with no sin.

intelligent people can be distracted by philosophical arguments

Agreed - and that's why I try to avoid philosophy and stick to theology. There are a billion things that can be philosophically determined to make sense and be good ways of thinking/living ... but Scripture and theology only have one actual conclusion.

Gotta go clean my MIL's house now, which is probably a more productive use of my time, lol.

Haha, most certainly. Thanks for the entertaining conversation and a new perspective on a criticism of Christ's ministry! I love being educated on these things, as I learn best through hearing new opposition.

[–]Willow-girl1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rocknrollchuck1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Haha, and here I thought it said that all things are now permissible, although not all may be profitable.

So what about murder? Is that now permissible? I don't think any reasonable person would say that. I think u/Red-Curious's comment below

To be clear, the context of "all things are permissible, but not everything is beneficial" is Paul quoting a philosophical mantra that the Corinthians used to justify their sinfulness in a book where his primary purpose is to rebuke them for that sin.

is where that saying comes from.

So the what is permissible and what is not is clearly laid out in the Bible. You have 3 kinds of Law in the Bible - the Moral Law, the Levitical (Priestly or ceremonial) Law, and the Civil Law. The only one that still applies today (for the reasons outlined in the linked article) is the Moral Law.

So the Moral Law consists of things that God has said to do or not to do, such as the Ten Commandments. But it also covers all other areas of morality, such as homosexuality. Put plainly, God's word says it's wrong. Old AND New Testament. So it's okay for Christians to say that it is wrong, because God has already said that it is wrong. We're not judging, because God has already judged it to be wrong. We are simply agreeing with what He's said. Anyone who says otherwise is disagreeing with God, not with us.

[–]Willow-girl1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

it is wrong to question if these people are saved even though they preach feminism

Now, we should always question the authenticity of someone's faith. That said, although feminist ideologies do not disqualify salvation, it does bring about a great reason for doubting someone's theological understanding.

it just seems like Christians hate anything male or man like and want to weaken them

To play devil's advocate briefly, you've got to have an extremely air-tight theology before you make a statement like that. The things the world calls "masculine" may, in fact, be the exact opposite of what God intended of men. We can't use the world's definition of "masculine" and get mad at Christians for refusing to embrace it. That's the same as the world trying to define marriage one way and then getting mad at the church for disagreeing because the Bible says something else.

That's why I'm trying to take greater care on this sub going forward to ensure that everything I say is sourced in the Bible first and not trying to "Christianize" RP concepts, as if the Bible must adopt secular notions.

some of our friends in my youth group happily are planning to get married with him being a house husband. I was like are you even Christian but apparently that is wrong to ask.

I used to have this ideology and had strong convictions about it. I've swung the other way now. The important thing is not the specific tasks each person does, but the authority structure within the home. So, if the husband wants to cook and clean while the wife goes off to work, I don't see anything sinful about that. The reason that these family structures often fail on a biblical level, though, is because society ingrains in us that money is power and authority. So, whoever is providing the money has the power. So, if a wife is the breadwinner, she will inherently understand that she has the ability to control the allocation of finances regardless of what her husband says. He can't redirect her paycheck to himself, but she can redirect it to make sure he has no access. So, the ultimately practical authority rests with her in that case. She must voluntarily humble herself to submit to her husband, which is hard for many women to do when the Bible is the only reason for them to do it. In addition: just as women struggle with control issues, men struggle with passivity and being a house-husband gives him too much opportunity to fall into this ingrainted passivity.

So, although the structure itself is not sinful, when you have a working mom and a stay at home dad the inherent temptation toward female control and male passivity is exponentially increased by the fact that they each are now in a context where the most natural thing to do would be to live in light of those sinful patterns that they already want to live in anyway.

Which got me thinking can I be Christian and have sex with a man?

No.

What should one do, should we still worship with these people?

Not alongside them as peers, but in front of them as leaders paving the way for them to walk toward the truth.

[–]Kashmon777[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

what about protection, provision and spiritual headship are those stereotypes?

Protection and provision yes, spiritual headship no. Spiritual headship is something God directly commanded in a manner that transcends cultural context. Protection and provision are not directly commanded outside of cultural context.

so even though Christ provides for the Church and God commanded adam to work before Eve came along men do not have to provide?

Sure, Christ provides, but the Proverbs 31 woman also has a job - she makes things and sells them in the marketplace. And yes, Adam was commanded to work first, but then God created a "helper" for him - not that she wouldn't have to work, but that she would help him do the work.

What about Timothy and Titus where women are asked to be workers at home?

I don't remember Timothy mentioning this, as his focus was more on authority in the church and that women should learn from their husbands. In Titus, if we applied your logic of taking a statement and stripping it from the point that's being made, then we'd be back to endorsing slavery a few verses later. The purpose in that section is: "that the word of God may not be reviled." In other words, "I don't want God's word reviled, so here are things you can do to accomplish that purpose." At the time it was a fact of life that women were working at home. This was expected. But many women (as is even more common today) were lazy and not actually doing anything. He's saying, "Don't be a lazy bum. Be diligent with your duties, otherwise people might hate God's Word because the people who profess it aren't living the kids of lives we want."

wait why is same sex a sin ?

Because the Bible says so.

but women get to ignore Titus 2

They don't. Culture just picks and chooses which verses they're going to impose on people. In the end, "God will judge each person according to what he has done" (Romans 2). So, regardless of how culture judges people, God's judgment is what matters. Women will not escape judgment for ignoring their sinfulness any more than homosexuals will escape judgment for trying to justify theirs.

I think your big confusion here is that you're assuming culture itself is the judge. It's not. God is. Just because culture says something doesn't mean God will follow suit.

P31 ( HER husband was not a house husband as so many people think- she was caring for her home as well) and go and have careers?

What's P31 and who is the "HER" you're referring to? This part confused me.

since you said men and women can swap roles in the home ( but it will be challenging) is there then no difference between male and female?

Of course there is. Any biologist will tell you that. There are hormonal distinctions, body build distinctions, muscular distinctions, psychological distinctions, etc. There are all kinds of differences. On the whole, men are better suited for certain types of jobs, including anything that involves heavy lifting. On the whole, women are suited for certain types of jobs, including things that involve a tender touch and an eye for beauty (i.e. caring for a home). But there are some tasks where men and women are equally capable because their natural biological leanings and God-given qualities simply don't have a preference.

A lot of these neutral positions are things that did not exist in biblical times. Back then, virtually all jobs required some form of hard manual labor. People were hitting things with hammers, building houses, tossing bales of hay, rearing large and small animals, fighting battles, etc. These are all things men are better suited for from a purely strength-based standard alone. So, it made sense that they would do these things and women would help by filling in the gaps, doing the things the men did not have the time to do, which often involved the housework and caring for children.

In a modern society, the vast majority of jobs do not require similar levels of hard, manual labor. In fact, many jobs today are better suited for women. Being in sales, for example, is typically far more profitable if you're a woman because her good looks can entice men to buy things. As is often said, sex sells. Particularly in a feminized culture, it's a lot harder to tell a woman no than a man. Although one could argue that women should be secretaries and men should be supervisors and CEOs because of an alleged intelligence difference (noting that this is not something the Bible specifically states; rather, it is a practical observation that is rapidly changing in a feminized world where most college attendees are women) ... but many companies are shifting away from raw intelligence as a standard for hiring supervisors and CEOs, noting that the smartest people don't make the most profit; rather, those who are relationally sensitive enough to foster interoffice relations are the ones who are maximizing efficiency. Guess who happens to be biologically more attuned to relational sensitivity?

I'm not saying this is how it should be. I'm saying this is how it is. There's also no biblical mandate that things cannot be this way. All we see is the example of a culture where all of the money-paying jobs required a degree of physical labor that women simply could not perform.

God did not make Eve to help Adam?

Correct.

they can be swapped?

No. You're confusing "employment" with "God's purposes." Eve wasn't created to help Adam produce income. Eve was created to help Adam do what God put Adam on the earth to do. Before the fall, that was simply maintaining what God had created. After the fall, that job became redeeming what God had created. Employment wasn't even a thing at that time. So, I don't buy into the notion that God cares which spouse is employed or not (other than to the degree that it increases temptation); rather, is the husband rightly on God's actual mission for him, and is his wife helping him with that? A man's job is not his mission from God. His mission from God is to make disciples of all nations.

as long as the one with the male genitals is in authority?

Yes, as long as the man is the one who is in authority on how to pursue the mission from God, it does not matter who is employed and who does the dishes. 1 Cor. is clear enough that God gives the mission to the man and teaches him how to fulfill it, and the man is to invite his wife to help him and teach her how to help him. Who has what secular job really doesn't matter.

[–]Kashmon777[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (29 children) | Copy Link

right

I am still not entirely convinced that this is biblical What do you make of Genesis 3 :16-17 where God gives a gendered curse to Adam making it difficult for him to provide. He did not give it to Eve even though Eve would face the same situation- it clearly shows God expects the man to provide.

Yes the P31 women worked. but her husband was not running the house.... it is also normal for women in agrarian societies to have side businesses.

You say applying Titus 2 would mean we have to endorse Slavery... If Titus 2 does not matter anymore because the instructions were for that culture/context will you then say that women also do not have to Love their husbands and they do not have to be discrete or chaste? If you are going to say women do not have to care for the home then surely you have to eliminate these instructions as well. Why is only the "workers at home "part ignored but not the others

God commanded Adam to work- if he is not working and playing the role of mother is he then not fulfilling his duty?

so you are saying God can command a husband to be a house husband and support his wife's career and ambitions? That can be his mission....

"Employment was not even a thing' sure but Adam still had to feed his wife... Genesis paints a picture of women now having pain in child birth and men having to toil to feed himself and family- why would God have gendered it if men were not mean't to provide

so even though Christ is our provider and husbands are to emulate Christ we should not strive to be like Christ?

you say that we can ignore Titus 2:5 because of that cultural context why then can't we interpret the verses against homosexuality to be only for that culture?

I find this interesting- throughout almost all cultures the woman looking after the home was always as in support to her husband- not one man in the bible was a house daddy while his wife ran businesses or plowed the fields and that was 6000 years of culture. If the wives did produce income they were also in charge of the home- caring for the home has always been the support role.

yet now caring for the home can be the primary mission of a husband....
even Jesus learn't his dads job. He did not try and follow his mom and be a typical Jewish wife of that time... and he could have.

if what you say is true a lot of feminists would love this- they can have their careers and take on the world and think they are supporting their husbands , while their husbands can run the home thinking they are the leader even though everything they are doing is really to supports the wife's work and mission.

I guess this must be right, there are now even single women Christian clubs that encourage women to be breadwinners and find men who want to be at home....

I still believe God created men to take on the world , not support his wife while she takes on the world but I guess I am in the minority on this earth.

[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

1/2

gendered curse to Adam making it difficult for him to provide. He did not give it to Eve

Are you suggesting women should never grow fruit and vegetables in their garden at home because this is the "man's job"? Or are you suggesting that God is concerned about money (which didn't even exist in Eden) and who provides it?

Eden had no money back then, so we can't look at the curse as a form of monetary provision issue. To that end, there's no prohibition against a woman earning an income (and Proverbs 31 specifically encourages this). Instead, the curse says that the man would have trouble growing food from the ground. So, if all house husbands also managed a garden in their back yard, would that satisfy you?

Do you see how absurd this line of logic sounds? You're trying to connect points where the text makes no connection - pitting labor with economic gain.

Here's how the curse worked: While in Eden all of the family's needs were handed to them on a silver platter. Adam was responsible to lead his wife and ensure the family unit was safe and healthy, which was easy because God did all the work. After the fall, the curse withdrew all of the provisions of Eden so that the responsibility of keeping the family safe and healthy would now be difficult work and not come naturally.

Whether a man is a house husband or a working father doesn't change the fact that he has hard work to do - that his responsibility to keep the family safe and healthy is more difficult now than it would have been in Eden.

Now, suppose two men have an earning capacity of minimum wage and they're each married to a woman who has an earning capacity of $250,000 per year (this happens all the time). Man 1 forbids his wife from working so that he can work two full-time jobs at McDonald's and Burger King while she takes care of the house. Man 2 lets his wife work while he manages the family finances, takes care of the household, and devotes his life to sharing his faith with those in his neighborhood. Which of these two men is exercising wisdom in his leadership of the home? Which of these two men will be more fruitful at carrying out the task God has given us of making disciples? Which of these two men is more likely to be neutralizing resentment and earning his wife's respect and admiration?

You see, you're trying to set aside all pragmatic wisdom just to satisfy your preconceived notion about who should earn the money in the household - and using a passage to justify your position that was written about a time before money even existed. Provision can come in any other number of ways, most notably through leadership and management of family resources. Both men and women are consistently expected throughout the Bible to generate resources for the family. Why does it matter who generates the money and who generates the food and who generates the clothing, etc.?

Titus 2

You're trying to throw the baby out with the bath water. "I have carrots, peas, corn, and rat killer in my kitchen pantry. I'm cooking dinner. I can't use the rat killer because that's meant for a different context, so I guess I can't use anything else in the pantry either ... we'll just have to go without food tonight."

It's not about isolating one thing and throwing it out. It's about looking at the purpose for what was being included in the first place. In this case, that purpose is: "that the word of God may not be reviled." Back then all of those things were necessary to ensure that the word of God was not reviled. He was giving examples of things that would keep the word of God from being reviled, not making an exclusive list of things that must always be done.

P31 says a wife should buy real estate and plant a vineyard, Titus 2 doesn't. If Titus 2 is an exclusive list of mandates, how do we reconcile that? Or with P31 saying she should also give to the poor, sell things in the marketplace, or make deliveries to merchants. Titus 2 doesn't mention those things either, so should we erase those things from the P31 woman?

Or, if we're taking hyper-literalist interpretations of Scripture, why aren't you going around condemning every woman who hasn't delivered goods to a merchant? What about all those families out there where the wife hasn't bought real estate and planted a vineyard? We better condemn them for that sin too, right? See how ridiculous that sounds? Anyone would look at P31 and say, "Obviously those are just examples of what a godly woman does, not a list of things that all women must do." But for some reason when you get to Titus 2 you're taking the opposite approach: "This is a list of things all women must do, they're not examples of what keeps the word of God from being reviled." This is a severe logical inconsistency.

If Titus 2 does not matter anymore because the instructions were for that culture/context

I'm not saying Titus 2 doesn't matter. It matters immensely. It matters that the word of God is not reviled among outsiders. It matters to know that Paul believed we should think in practical, specific ways about what would cause an outsider to revile God's Word. What I'm not interested in are legalistic, literalist interpretations of texts that ignore the meaning behind what is said - especially when the meaning is given right there in the text itself.

I can at least understand the "greet one another with a holy kiss" people taking that literally. There are actual people (I had a friend who was one of them) who would kiss every Christian - man or woman - he spoke with on the belief that this is what Paul was commanding. At least in that verse there's no given meaning. Paul doesn't say, "so that you set a positive context for your interaction." That's probably what he actually meant, but without those words in the text, I can understand skipping to a literalist interpretation (even if it is a dumb interpretation). But you're taking a text where the actual intent is given and erasing that intention from the context of how you're interpreting the rest of the passage. That's dangerous.

God commanded Adam to work- if he is not working and playing the role of mother is he then not fulfilling his duty?

You're confusing "work" with "earn income." Again, these are not the same. House husbands do work hard - and if they don't, they're sinning. They should be exercising labor for the good of the family, and orienting the resource generation capacity of himself and his wife in a manner that most efficiently provides for his family. If that means having her generate monetary resources and him generating labor around the home, such as dinner to eat, raising godly children, fixing the deck, ministering to the neighbors, etc. - that is actual work. Maybe you just have the idea in your head that "stay at homes" just mope around watching TV and playing video games all day. That's not how it works in a biblical context - and if the guy is doing that, it's sin.

so you are saying God can command a husband to be a house husband and support his wife's career and ambitions? That can be his mission....

Finally - we get to the MOST IMPORTANT distinction in all of this: the mission. No, this is ABSOLUTELY NOT his mission. Want to know what else is ABSOLUTELY NOT his mission? Making money. That's a horrible mission - and one that the Bible clearly says should NOT be our mission. Our mission is to make disciples.

If a man can be more effective sending his wife to work a day job while he devotes his life to ministry, for example (as is the case for countless pastors and missionaries), he is fulfilling his role and duty. He is WORKING toward the mission that God has in mind for him. In Eden the mission to make disciples didn't exist because anyone who would have been born sinless wouldn't need discipleship. So, God gave Adam other things to do. After the fall, God'r primary priority was no longer on naming animals and tending the garden - it was on reconciling humanity to himself. That was, is, and always will be the mission for so long as this earth exists.

To be clear: the man's job is to orient the family toward the goal of making disciples. THAT is the only "work" that matters. The context he does it in - be it as an income provider or a stay-at-home-dad - doesn't matter. He should do that in the most efficient manner possible. But we do see consistently throughout Scripture that if the man fails to account for the provision of his family in pursuit of that mission, he will fail in his mission as well.

1 Timothy 5 says this plainly: "But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." This is not a verse about "men must work." It is a verse about a man ensuring that while he's on mission for Christ he's not neglecting the needs of the family - that he's still fostering an environment where his wife and children are provided for. Whether that is through his direct provision or his leadership decision to have his wife be the income-generator doesn't matter.

[–]RedPillWonderMod | American man1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

If you good fellows don't mind, I think I'll join in the conversation.

Good points Red, I'd like to argue the other side, though.

Back then all of those things were necessary to ensure that the word of God was not reviled.

I'm always leery of cultural arguments, as they are easily used to alter an interpretation of scripture, among other reasons. They're also a favorite of complementarians (and I know you're not one).

It's about looking at the purpose for what was being included in the first place. In this case, that purpose is: "that the word of God may not be reviled."

That purpose can be accomplished by interpreting the passage literally.

P31 says a wife should buy real estate and plant a vineyard

No it doesn't.

It talks about the characteristics of a virtuous woman, and asks rhetorically, "Who can find a woman like this?"

Titus 2 doesn't. If Titus 2 is an exclusive list of mandates, how do we reconcile that?

You don't have to reconcile friends.

A woman can obey the words mentioned in Titus and do (or not do) some of the things the Proverbs 31 woman did.

if we're taking hyper-literalist interpretations of Scripture, why aren't you going around condemning every woman who hasn't delivered goods to a merchant? What about all those families out there where the wife hasn't bought real estate and planted a vineyard?

What's with the "hyper?" Literalist fits fine :)

As to the questions, see my comment above or your own quote, which I agree with, about it being examples of what a virtuous woman does and not a list of commands.

But for some reason when you get to Titus 2 you're taking the opposite approach: "This is a list of things all women must do, they're not examples of what keeps the word of God from being reviled." This is a severe logical inconsistency.

It's not the opposite approach, it's consistent with scripture, as the passage in Titus clearly states that young women are to be taught to do these things.

There is no such compunction in P31.

What I'm not interested in are legalistic, literalist interpretations of texts that ignore the meaning behind what is said

It highlights rather than ignores the meaning.

especially when the meaning is given right there in the text itself.

Exactly. And the word of God is reviled when a young woman doesn't obey what she is to be taught.

And she is to be taught to be a keeper at home.

Can she work outside the home? Of course. The Proverbs 31 woman did (and note that most of her work also fulfills what Titus says as well) but unless one wants to get rid of the Titus passage, a wife's primary concern should be working at home.

If she can do both, great! But if her career gets in the way of being a keeper/worker at home, that's a problem, and the word of God is reviled.

Tag: /u/Kashmon777 since it's his conversation with you.

And also: /u/OsmiumZulu because I'd like to get his thoughts.

And /u/RocknRollChuck because we might as well get the whole gang in on this :) Actually, I think Chuck mentioned A Biblical Portrait of Marriage by Bruce Wilkinson. Bruce also did Leading and Loving and A Heart that Makes A Home, outlining the roles and responsibilities of a husband and wife. It's been about 15 years since I went through those, but his take on Titus and other related passages on this issue are the same as mine.

[–]Red-Curious1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think I'll join in the conversation

That's why I tagged you :)

I'm always leery of cultural arguments

Me too. That's exactly why I take the position I do. Proponents of returning to a historical culture look at how things used to be and say, "God put his stamp of approval on that culture and even today we should follow exactly what they were doing." This abandons theology and puts cultural philosophies in its place.

they are easily used to alter an interpretation of scripture

Agreed. And that is dangerous. But consider that (1) scripture can be re-interpreted based on changing culture, but also (2) scripture can be re-interpreted to support a static culture. Both are equally dangerous forms of eisegesis.

complementarians (and I know you're not one)

I can't even say that I fully grasp what "complementarianism" is. By my understanding of the definition, I am one: someone who believes that men and women have equal value in God's eyes, but who were created to have different authoritative roles that are not equal on a hierarchical level. But many self-identified complementarians are really egalitarian, which I am certainly not.

That purpose can be accomplished by interpreting the passage literally.

You're confusing interpretation with application. The literal interpretation is that at the time Paul wrote the passage, , , and ___ would cause the word of God to be reviled. That is a literal interpretation. A literal application would say we are to obey the literal text regardless of context ... i.e. the Westboro Baptist Church ;)

No it doesn't. It talks about the characteristics of a virtuous woman, and asks rhetorically, "Who can find a woman like this?"

Good point. But the same context still applies. On an interpretational level P31 is suggesting that a godly woman in that culture would strive to this standard, much like Titus 2 doesn't command young women to work in the home, it only asks that older women teach younger women that as a standard.

A woman can obey the words mentioned in Titus and do (or not do) some of the things the Proverbs 31 woman did.

Sure, but you're entering a theological inconsistency when you do that - unless your point is simply to say that women can do the Titus 2 things but don't have to. To that end, I totally agree. There's nothing wrong with a woman working in the home, just as there's nothing wrong with a woman planting a vineyard. But those are not things she is obligated to do - they are things that in their own cultural context would produce the intended result. But if there are other ways of producing that intended result, then that is acceptable as well. The intended result is what matters, not the means of how we get there - unless it's something where the Bible explicitly says, "It must be done this way."

For example, when Jesus lays a pattern for disciple-making, he clearly shows us how he intended it to be done and the church is wrong when we abandon his methodology in favor of our own philosophies of ministry. But if we look at Matthew 10:5-6, for example - "Go nowhere among the Gentiles and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" ... are we to interpret this literally too? That's why Matthew 28:19-20's great commission is so potent - the words themselves drive the application as being culturally transitive and transcendent. We do not have similar language in many other passages, which is why we need the Spirit to give us discernment. I do not follow the line of theology that says, "This must apply today because it's in the new testament."

A great example is 1 Timothy 2:9-10 - "women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness - with good works." This passage doesn't discriminate between private and public settings. In fact, it says plainly: "in every place." Yet women braid their hair all the time - and I find it attractive, especially when my wife does it (it's one of my kinks). I also like it when my wife does NOT adorn herself in "respectable apparel" and I even enjoy it when she shows off cleavage in public. That most certainly would have not met the standard of "respectable apparel" in Paul's time. If we apply this passage literally today, so much for the whole "create your slut" and having a "sexy wife" - those go right out the window. And to be clear, this is literally the exact verse before the part about "let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man." So, are we going to accept a literal interpretation of one, yet cast out the other? Do you see how just trying to take things literally causes intense cognitive dissonance in the application process?

What makes sense is that Paul is talking about the type of flashy attire that would intimate a woman was a prostitute or otherwise dressing in a prideful, showy way. Today, braiding your hair and wearing gold and pearls aren't things that only whores and rich girls do. Doing these doesn't impugn a woman's character in many parts of the world because it is commonplace. So, I let my wife wear her gold wedding ring and braid her hair for me. But in the very next verses about leadership, Paul then connects them to creation, suggesting that this part transcends culture, just like the great commission.

Does this make sense? Who knows, maybe you will actually forbid your wife from braiding her hair or wearing jewelry or any clothes that cost more than $x (whatever you define as "costly"). I know my wife braids her hair, wears gold and pearls, and has some expensive lingerie and dresses. Maybe she's in sin. I don't think so.

What's with the "hyper?" Literalist fits fine

Because I consider myself a literalist most of the time. Like the whole "cut off your hand if it causes you to sin" bit ... I believe Jesus was speaking literally, not figuratively. Similarly, when Jesus says, "If anyone does not hate his father and mother, etc. he cannot be my disciple," I believe he was speaking literally and not in hyperobole. But the literal interpretation doesn't make sense until you actually understand the context of the passage. To break it down:

Non-literalism is when someone ignores context in order to reach conclusions that make sense to them
Literalism is when we look at the context of a passage to find the most clear, direct, and literal interpretation of what the author likely meant
Hyper literalism is when we look only at the exact letter of what's being said and ignore the context

So, a "literal" reading of Titus 2 would say that , , and are things Paul suggests are ways of preventing the Word of God from being reviled. A hyper literalist says that we must do , , and regardless of the context in which Paul said it or the context of the person trying to apply it. For reference, a non-literal reading would suggest that Titus 2 is speaking of general principles that are valuable for us to understand, but that we can apply them however we see fit. These are not the only 3 interpretive frameworks, but they are common ones.

Titus clearly states that young women are to be taught to do these things

I addressed this above: it's not even a command that young women must do these things - it's merely a command that older women are to teach the young women to do them. My point is that it's not as simple as "This passage says young women should 'work at home,' so all women should work at home." You can't remove the thing being taught from the reason for which it is being taught.

a wife's primary concern should be working at home.

Where'd you jump from "working at home" to "this must be her primary concern"?

If she can do both, great! But if her career gets in the way of being a keeper/worker at home, that's a problem, and the word of God is reviled.

Let me be clear: in a modern culture a man would be a fool not to facilitate his wife's earning capacity in some way. A failure to do so is drastically shifting the balance of power in the relationship and is the primary reason people are afraid of divorce rape in the first place. As you note, the Bible does not put an economic quota on husbands or wives or suggest who must earn more. This is a purely cultural argument that is simply not found in Scripture, which was the point I believe /u/Kashmon777 was predominantly trying to make.

But I also don't think there is anything sinful if the wife works and the man stays at home. Even outside exigent circumstances, I don't see a command: "Husbands, thou shalt not stay at home and work; instead, thou shalt earn more money than your wife." It's simply not there.

I fully agree that a woman should not ONLY WORK and do absolutely nothing around the home. That would certainly be sinful. But to say that work around the home must be her "primary concern" is taking it too far. I believe the "primary concern" of the wife should be what her husband tells her should be her primary concern.

Right now my wife is in busy season. As a tax accountant before April 15, she'll soon be working close to 80 hours a week and come April that will ramp up to over 100 hours per week. I have instructed her not to worry about the housework. I'm all OYS anyway. It's my house. I'm responsible for it, not her. When she's not in busy season, I delegate a lot of that responsibility to her, but it's still my responsibility and not hers. Am I in sin for telling my wife to focus on work during busy season and to let me deal with the housework? I don't think so. I don't think Titus 2 condemns either her or me.

[–]Kashmon7771 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Red-Curious1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kashmon7771 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kashmon7770 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

so basically your her help meet.... helping her tackle the world and take dominion over the world

All the verses in the bible still apply if men were mean't to be house husbands where is the verse asking men to be "workers at home"?

why did God specify that Adam would face trouble in his Work- he could have said both of them but he specified Adam for a reason.

Cultural argument? IDK what you are on about but in most societies at least for 6000 years men have been primarily responsible for provision regardless of what the wife contributed

because no man in the bible is commanded to go look after the home so the wife can plow the fields and only women are asked to do that , believers say the wife's primary concern is her home of course that is in fact supporting her husband.

TBH it looks more like you are trying to conform to culture by ignoring huge parts of the bible and justifying the role reversal all the feminists WANT

men at home supporting their wives

your work is also your mission- God created men to work before Eve came along

[–]Red-Curious1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kashmon7771 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

except it is you want your wife's money why do you have to make up for her lost income of course it is your family, you run it as you wish if you prefer she give the best of her time submitting to other men that is your choice!

but to pretend that a house husband is the leader and biblical is naive and to get there you need to throw out Chunks of the bible

I don't care what the church says- the bible matters

oh and the whole- men should run society and house husbands should only be a small % logic just proves your reasoning is wrong because it clearly shows that providers ultimately shape society.

if being a house daddy is not sinful- you should be fine with a feminist utopia where women are the providers and decision makers while men "lead" from the house sounds like a son who grew up with a beta male provider- realized the mom was really in charge so thinks the mom's role is leadership- completely forgetting the gender dynamics

[–]Red-Curious1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kashmon7770 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Red-Curious1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kashmon7770 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Red-Curious1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kashmon7771 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kashmon777[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Red-Curious1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, that's not his mission - and if it is his mission, he's missed what God was actually calling him to. If they are not making disciples and bearing fruit for God's Kingdom, then yes, they did it in vain.

It sounds harsh to say that, but I literally just met with a guy over lunch whose job is to train church pastors. In one of his meetings last week he had a pastor tell him with a grave, solemn face, "I have been wasting the last 28 years of my life pursuing the wrong things in my ministry. All of my efforts were in vain because I have no fruit to show for it - I have no genuine disciples living today from my ministry." He had lots of people showing up on Sunday mornings and going to Bible studies and whatnot - but no one who was actively reproducing their lives for Christ because of his efforts. This is the sad reality of most pastors who have missed the model that Christ laid out for us.

[–]Kashmon777[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Red-Curious1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

your example with a wife earning 250k is all based on money not what we were created for it means that that family is money focused.

That's because your arguments have all been about economic provision - that the husband must out-earn his wife or else he's not a "provider."

a man;s job is more than making disciples if he is married Paul states this is a disadvantage for married people as they have to focus on providing and caring for a wife and kids

Let's be clear about 1 Cor. 7 - it does not say that "providing and caring for a wife and kids" is the man's "job." It says "the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife" (v33). It lists this as a source of anxiety and distraction, not as biblical obligation. To the contrary: "From now on, let those who have wives live as though they had none" (v29). Now, there are other passages that condemn a man for failing to "take care of/provide for" his family, but 1 Cor. 7 isn't one of them.

you really think God would swap roles and give men the mission to be workers at home, and help meets to their husbands?

I think you mean "help meets to their wives" in the end there. But again, as I've said in other comments, you're confusing the authority structure for the economic function of each spouse. It would be a sin for a man to be his wife's "helper" or "help meet," if you prefer that term. But a wife can still be a man's "helper" if she is the breadwinner and he stays at home. It's all about the mission and who's leading it. If she's working, isn't her financial income helping the husband as well? Economics has nothing to do with it.

[–]Kashmon7771 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

who said the husband must out-earn? bear the responsibility of provision just because a woman earns more or inherited billions does not automatically mean she does not run the home or care for her home your wife might be lazy... but a godly wife understands the home is her responsibility regardless of her income

one of my friends the wife ears nearly a million a year he works as well, he leads in church etc He is NOT running the home... his wife is your method sounds more money focused and less bible focused a woman truly submitted to God won't ignore P31 Timothy or Titus yes but if it means the husband is sitting at home instead of working in the world, protecting his wife , dealing with the sinful world and putting the burden of provision on his wife then he is not being loving

Christ provides for us- so many verses in the bible alluding to that not just physical of course ( and husbands have to provide, emotionally etc anyway) but it still encompasses physical

by your logic the Church should be fine with providing for Christ... the pride of that logic is borderline heresey.

Economics defines the mission- a man can do whatever supposed mission he wants- if the wife is the breadwinner and she has to move the family to another continent or lose her job- she rules- his mission can be stuffed- feeding people is the most urgent need

the provider and sustainer is the authority always has been - this is why God is described as our provider and sustainer, ( in fact all invented Gods are providers and sustainer)

[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

2/2

Genesis paints a picture of women now having pain in child birth and men having to toil to feed himself and family- why would God have gendered it if men were not mean't to provide

This is probably where most of your confusion is. You're assuming the curse is a command. It's not. It's a description of how things would work from then on. "I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing" is not a command: "all women must bear children" - or else what do we do of the many women throughout Scripture whose wombs were closed by God Himself!? Is God forcing them to break the command given to them in the curse, and thereby God is forcing them into sin? No, because the curse is not a command.

Likewise, "cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it" is not a command that men must work the ground. It is simply a saying that the ground itself is cursed, which affected men because men back then (and today still) are the primary farmers.

"But then the whole bit about 'your desire shall be to control your husband, but he shall rule over you'? So God's not commanding that men must be the leaders?" Some people make that logical leap, but the authoritative structure actually comes from the creation narrative itself (i.e. Genesis 2), not the curse. /u/RedPillWonder reminded me of that early on in this sub when I had overlooked it in one of my comments.

Long story short: don't look to the curse to find any form of command of what men and women should be doing - look at it as a series of descriptors of how God determined the world would function. Also ... is it any surprise that in the early/mid-1900s we finally see the curse reversing for both men and women?

Men: Because now women are working more too, easing male obligation for labor. Also because we started using factories and mechanized processes for generating food rather than farming the land.
Women: Because feminism started to rise, giving women more authority in the household. Also because medications were developed to ease the pain in child-bearing.

For approximately 6,000 years the curse was in full-effect. Only today has the passive descriptive nature of what God set in motion been predominantly thwarted, only existing in minority subsets of society. But all of that is just a side point to what we're otherwise discussing.

you say that we can ignore Titus 2:5 because of that cultural context why then can't we interpret the verses against homosexuality to be only for that culture?

I never said we ignore Titus 2:5 - I said we look at the purpose for the examples Paul gave. The purpose is what is to be fulfilled, not the examples, just like with the P31 woman - we look to the character traits of that woman, not the specific examples of what she was doing. When we look to things like homosexuality, the biblical narrative is consistent in the purpose for why it is seen as an abomination: because it breaks the image of God that is meant to be reflected through the family.

That's a much longer point to reach, but let me boil it down to the essentials:

God created the family unit to reflect his relationship with the church.
In Malachi 2:15 God said that the primary purpose of marriage and sexuality is to "produce godly offspring." It is not enough to produce physical offspring (as God proved by wiping away the ungodly with a flood) - they must be spiritually alive offspring, not spiritually dead.
The Spiritual parallel tells us that the primary purpose of our union with Christ is to produce spiritual offspring - not just warm bodies in the seats on sunday, but people who are spiritually alive.
If the primary purpose of the church is spiritual reproduction (i.e. "make disciples of all nations") and the marriage unit is meant to be a parallel and reflection of that purpose, yet reproduction is impossible in a homosexual context, then it clearly breaks the parallel God is trying to establish.
If homosexual marriage were permissible, it would imply that God's relationship with his church is more about intimate pleasure than actual spiritual reproduction, which would set a bad precedent and undermine the imperative of making disciples of all nations.

In all of this, the purpose of God condemning homosexuality is an eternal one. No matter what culture, time period, or life context, God's relationship with his church will never change and the marriage relationship will always be a reflection of that relationship. However, the way that culture might be led into reviling God's Word is something that actually does change throughout different cultures and time periods.

Note in all of this that I'm not referencing the Levitical law about homosexuality - I'm merely referencing the general spiritual condemnation of it. The Levitical law is no longer applicable today, so I do not call for the deaths of homosexuals, as many fundamental literalists attempt to do.

I find this interesting- throughout almost all cultures the woman looking after the home was always as in support to her husband- not one man in the bible was a house daddy while his wife ran businesses or plowed the fields and that was 6000 years of culture.

Well, I guess that sucks for all the wives of the men who came home from war physically mamed and incapable of working in the field or generating income. Seriously, though: you're again trying to compare a culture where the only income-generating jobs were jobs that women were inferior to men at performing. Until technology rose to level the capacity of women to generate income with men's, it makes sense that in such low-tech societies virtually all the examples we see are of men. But don't confuse "there are no biblical examples" with "God mandated it to be this way."

There are also no biblical examples of men working with computers. So, are you going to make the same logical leap and say: "For 6,000 years of culture men never worked with computers. And now today most men do - this is obviously sin because we don't see any examples of it in the Bible where God approves of it." That is a huge logical fallacy.

caring for the home has always been the support role.

No, submitting to her husband has always been the support role. If the husband tells his wife to leave the home and go buy a vineyard and plant it (per Proverbs 31), would you suggest that she's doing wrong and being unsupportive? Don't confuse cultural context with biblical imperative. This is a very, very dangerous thing to do. Unless God puts his stamp of approval on a culture and says, "Yes, that's exactly how I want things done - everyone should model this," we cannot say that just because Israel did it that way, we should do it that way too.

if what you say is true a lot of feminists would love this- they can have their careers and take on the world and think they are supporting their husbands

Haha, quite the opposite. If the husband tells his wife to get a job and she does, do you think feminists will support that? No, they're going to say, "You don't tell us what to do!" You make the mistake of assuming all feminists want high-paying careers. It's not about career advancement. Feminists want opportunities - they want the ability to choose for themselves whether they stay at home or work without a man telling them which it should be. If the husbands ask their wives to work, it's not that the wives "think they are supporting their husbands" - they actually are supporting their husbands.

while their husbands can run the home thinking they are the leader

If this was at the husbands' discretion, then they're not "thinking they are the leader" - they actually are the leader.

even though everything they are doing is really to supports the wife's work and mission.

Phew ... you're really hung up on this idea that money and mission are tied together. Jesus said it plainly: "You cannot serve both God and money" (Matthew 6:24). As long as you keep thinking "money-maker = mission-maker" you're going to be in a very spiritually dark place. Our mission is to make disciples, not to make money.

there are now even single women Christian clubs that encourage women to be breadwinners and find men who want to be at home....

Now this I agree is sinful. It's not women looking to be submissive and supportive toward their husbands. It's women looking for men who will be submissive and supportive of the women's intentions. This defies the leadership structure because she is saying, "I will only 'follow my husband' if he is going to lead where I want him to go anyway." As my former pastor used to say: It's not submission until you disagree.

I still believe God created men to take on the world , not support his wife while she takes on the world

Again, you're confusing mission and money. Having a job isn't you "taking on the world." Advancing God's Kingdom through a lifestyle of discipleship is. Whether or not the man or the woman - or both or neither - has a job is all just context for that lifestyle.

I guess I am in the minority on this earth.

I would hope that mistaken theology is in the minority ;)

[–]Kashmon777[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

cool I don't think it is literal I don't think the curse is a command i think that there has to be a reason why he specified that curse to Adam

he could have specified it to Eve as well but he chose to limit it to adam.

Indication that the job of finding resources to feed the family was always the mans primarily .

The P31 woman was providing but her husband was not a house daddy so am not sure what you are on about...

why is Malachi 2:15 not only for that culture like you say Titus 2:5 is?

Throughout history the home role as always been seen as the support role, a woman demanding to work just because she earns more is now Godly?

you say to not put cultural context as biblical imperative

the same could be said for gay marriage, it was only for that context

I was not in the minority until probably 30 years ago. For millenia people believed the harder job was to provide and men took on the harder job as part of his duty to protect and care for his wife like Christ....

I know our culture likes to think staying at home is harder, but it is not.

[–]Red-Curious1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

he chose to limit it to adam.

Who says he limited it to Adam? I get the impression that if women tried to work in the fields it would be just as hard for them as well. The fact that he spoke a universal curse in Adam's direction was an indication of the practical reality that Eve would not be able to do the type of groundwork that needed to be done if she was to bear enough children to "fill the earth and multiply." Her pains in pregnancy would prevent this, creating a practical imbalance in each of their economic functions in the marriage - not a God-mandated one.

Throughout history the home role as always been seen as the support role, a woman demanding to work just because she earns more is now Godly?

The man working and the woman staying at home was never "godly" either - it was just a practical reality. You're making a cultural argument, suggesting that "because the culture at the time of the Bible did this, that must mean God wanted it done that way." But the Philistines, Babylonians, Ninevites, etc. all had similar cultures. There was nothing uniquely "godly" about men working and women staying at home. It was just the practical reality of the world and at no point did God ever say, "I endorse this culture, all other cultures must be just like it."

I know our culture likes to think staying at home is harder, but it is not.

You're right there!

[–]Kashmon7771 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

EXACTLY it is a universal curse yet he directed it to ADAM it shows even when there was no sin Adam was the worker- dealing with the world and providing for his wife ( work existed before the fall)

How is a command/curse the GOD GAVE not God Mandated?!! You must worship a different God, but last I checked women still have pain in childbirth and work is still hard- I think God wins on this one and not your opinion

Jesus is all powerful- he learn't his dads trade not whatever his mom did.

Practical reality? we are now ruled by practical reality and not God's word OKAY THEN most modern women are men in skits practically it makes more sense to marry a man- why say homo marriage is sinful....

yes male as the head's of their households was also common to almost all cultures- by your logic we should chuck out men leading families as well

why do you think that ( providers have the authority- who ever controls the fulfillment of basic needs is the authority)- This is why God is described all over the bible as our provider and sustainer

if it is not sinful then you should be fine and promote the push to have female breadwinners - remove men from the workforce and establish a feminist utopia where men run the homes and women work.

You like the complementarians will still say the men are leading because the husband made the decision to be at home...

[–]Kashmon777[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Red-Curious1 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

it is like the head covering verses- of course we do not practice it literally but we still need to practice it

You're arguing against yourself now. Either be a hyper-literalist or not. But make up your mind. Either both 1 Timothy and Titus are to be applied literally without regard for cultural context or they are both to be applied understood literally, but applied within appropriate cultural context. Don't pick and choose.

The purpose of the head covering isn't to respect her husband. It is to demonstrate a cultural symbol of her husband's headship over her. Culture at that time would have known what the head covering represented. Cultures today in middle-eastern countries still understand this - and they are right for wearing head coverings in their own cultural context. My wife demonstrates this in an American culture not through what she wears (because the verse isn't about the cloth itself), but by how she conducts herself in public and how she speaks of me. Back then, women were scarcely alone and uncovered in public and were not speaking to men - that's what the head covering was for, in part. So, they didn't have the opportunity to display their husband's headship through their actions the same way that is available today, which in modern culture is obvious and sticks out like a sore thumb.

Tag: /u/redpillwonder

[–]Kashmon7771 point 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kashmon777[S] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rocknrollchuckMod | 50M | Married 11 yrs1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Men and women are, before anything else, the same, in that we are created together in the image of God (Gen. 1:26-27)

Men and women were created separately, although both were created in the image of God.

We can over-emphasize male/female distinctions in a way that can lead boys to see women as entirely other, or as weak and needy without a man.

Look at the examples of women throughout the Bible - while not depicted as "weak and needy", they are definitely depicted as under the care and authority of men, whether fathers, brothers or husbands.

Virtually everyone in our society can agree that there are special vulnerabilities for women in our society, of their potential mistreatment by men.

Those potential vulnerabilities have been present in every society in the history of the world.

A man can more easily abandon his responsibilities to his children than can a woman who carries these children in her own body.

And we have the courts to take care of that imbalance, right?

One would strain to think of a man-denigrating matriarchy in the world today

Does this guy live in a different world than I do?

but woman-oppressing patriarchies are sadly common, and indeed all around us if we define a pagan patriarchy for what it is: one that bases the worth of women and girls on their sexual attractiveness and availability to men.

This guy confuses a "pagan patriarchy" with the truth: a "pagan, fem-centric hypergamous society."

We are not to conform to that spirit of this present darkness.

Well, at least he got this part right. We are called to be set apart as Christians.

First, fathers and male teachers, especially, can highlight the ways they learn from and are sharpened by godly, strong women—from the biblical examples of such leaders as Ruth and Priscilla and Lydia and our Lord’s mother Mary to our more immediate mothers- and sisters-in-Christ.

1 Oprah chapter 5.

If you are married, men, pay attention and give respect to the counsel of your wife.

Translation: listen to your wife's counsel, for she knows more than you do.

If you are a pastor, do not patronize women in your sermon illustrations or introductions.

I bet the author cannot cite one example of this in the past 5 years.

At the same time, emphasize the horror of a man mistreating women.

"Men, focus on the negative as a positive example for your sons!"

Do not let the boys and young men around you ever, even for a millisecond, see you waving away or justifying sexual predation, misogynistic comments, or violence against women by a sports figure because he plays for your team or a politician because he belongs to your party or an entertainer because he makes you laugh.

This part is true. However, the truth must be uncovered, so don't just take the media's statements at face value either. Especially concerning allegations made now for situations that happened 20, 30 years ago when both were young adults (when minors are involved, this is obviously different). Use this as an opportunity to discuss this with the whole family, especially your sons.

The devil hates women enough to want them victimized by predatory men. The devil hates men enough to want them warped into predators or abusers. Let’s model a different way—that of Christ

Well, at least he ends on a positive note of truth.

[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Men and women were created separately, although both were created in the image of God.

Let me note something that almost never gets said - even on this sub. God created Adam and was, at least from our temporal perspective, presumably done. When God created light he knew he was going to create the stars next and the waters and the birds and plants and all of that. He knew he was going to create man.

On a theological level, sure, he knew he was going to create woman too. But do note that God's creation of woman was reactionary to his creation of man. Not to muddle with omniscience, but the way Moses writes the narrative is as if to say that God created man, started to marvel at all he had done, then thought, "Oh, I probably shouldn't leave him alone" - as if the creation of women was an afterthought, not part of the original intent.

Now again, omniscience tells us otherwise - that God knew he was going to create woman all along, just as omniscience tells us that God knew the fall would happen all along. Consider the parallel:

The narrative of the fall ignores God's omniscience and assumes events unfolded in a cause-effect manner where the effect of sin was distinct from the initial condition that God caused in creating the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
The narrative of creation ignores God's omniscience and assumes events unfolded in a cause-effect manner where the effect of woman's creation was distinct from the initial condition that God caused in creating man.

Despite the parallel analogies, we find theologians and apologists vehemently trying to explain away the cause-effect dynamic as to the fall, yet fully embracing the cause-effect dynamic in the language of the text as to the creation of woman. Of course, in the interests of full disclosure, I have no problem embracing God's omniscience in the institution of evil in the world and I don't feel any compulsion to explain it away. So, I suppose under my own theology I'd undermine at least this aspect of my argument.

Nevertheless, omniscience or not, there's something to be said about the fact that the narrative is framed this way. So there, I said it. Oh yeah, Paul also said it first in 1 Timothy 2:13 (accounting for the context).

if we define a pagan patriarchy for what it is: one that bases the worth of women and girls on their sexual attractiveness and availability to men.

That's the definition of patriarchy? Could have fooled me :p He needs to open a dictionary: "a system of society or government in which the father or eldest male is head of the family and descent is traced through the male line."

I bet the author cannot cite one example of this in the past 5 years.

This point is the most worthwhile one you've made. It emphasizes that popular opinion is based not on factual representations, but on phantom allegations that pop in and out of reality, or otherwise on the one isolated anecdote that stands as an island in the sea of contrary evidence.

[–]rocknrollchuckMod | 50M | Married 11 yrs0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Let me note something that almost never gets said - even on this sub. God created Adam and was, at least from our temporal perspective, presumably done. When God created light he knew he was going to create the stars next and the waters and the birds and plants and all of that. He knew he was going to create man.

On a theological level, sure, he knew he was going to create woman too. But do note that God's creation of woman was reactionary to his creation of man. Not to muddle with omniscience, but the way Moses writes the narrative is as if to say that God created man, started to marvel at all he had done, then thought, "Oh, I probably shouldn't leave him alone" - as if the creation of women was an afterthought, not part of the original intent.

Now again, omniscience tells us otherwise

I agree with most of what you've said, but I'll add this for consideration:

If God's omniscience means that He knows EVERYTHING that will ever happen, then it leaves no room for original thought. Take the Creation of the Earth and Mankind to begin with - did God have that planned for all eternity past, or did He come up with the idea at some point in the past? I don't think we know enough about the true omniscience of God to know this. At the very least, the answer is not revealed explicitly in Scripture. It is, however, alluded to in the verses where God changes His mind:

Exodus 32:14
Jeremiah 26:19
1 Samuel 15:29
Jonah 4:2
Jonah 3:9-10
Exodus 32:12
Amos 7:3
Amos 7:6

And many, many others. So the question is, did God KNOW He was going to change His mind, or was it an original thought, a decision to do something different that He didn't know beforehand that He had planned (because He hadn't planned it yet). I think we would be wise here to not limit God's omniscience to our understanding, and recognize that there may be more nuance to it.

Consider the parallel:

The narrative of the fall ignores God's omniscience and assumes events unfolded in a cause-effect manner where the effect of sin was distinct from the initial condition that God caused in creating the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

The narrative of creation ignores God's omniscience and assumes events unfolded in a cause-effect manner where the effect of woman's creation was distinct from the initial condition that God caused in creating man.

Despite the parallel analogies, we find theologians and apologists vehemently trying to explain away the cause-effect dynamic as to the fall, yet fully embracing the cause-effect dynamic in the language of the text as to the creation of woman.

And this kind of example is exactly why I say that maybe we don't (or can't) understand it fully.

This point is the most worthwhile one you've made. It emphasizes that popular opinion is based not on factual representations, but on phantom allegations that pop in and out of reality, or otherwise on the one isolated anecdote that stands as an island in the sea of contrary evidence.

Feelz over realz.

[–]Red-CuriousMod | 34M | Married 11 yrs1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

These are good points. I've always taken the position that God's "changing his mind" was a statement framed that way for our benefit, not as a theological fact of God existing in a temporal stream, which would make God subject to time, which would mean that there are things or concepts which transcend God.

I often reference this concept when discussing prayer with people. Specifically, I ask people to muse on the concept of praying that God would change the past. If he does, we would have no memory of ever having prayed it, so for all we know our prayer to change the past was answered and our memory was simply adjusted to account for the fact that in the present timeline we never would have had to pray for that in the first place. If he doesn't answer the prayer, that accounts for why we remember praying it in the first place, but does not prove that God does not answer those prayers.

The reason I bring that up is because if God is both timeless and omniscient, as I believe he is, then before time began, God knew everything that ever would be, including every possible variation of how free choice would play out, including every prayer that would or would not have been said under any and every circumstance. When we do not pray, God would not have pre-creation accounted for what we would have said if we had asked, hence James saying "you do not have because you do not ask." But in every possible version of reality, God knew what we actually would pray and incorporated those prayers when setting his actual divine plan into motion.

To that end, God's understanding of what would unfold throughout eternity has been unchanging since creation and will remain unchanged throughout eternity in heaven. But at the same time, that understanding was affected by our prayers and our choices. In this, we can rest confidently in both God's sovereign predetermination of history, knowing that he knows and has determined everything that ever was and will be, but also that our individual expressions and freedoms are valid and genuine and that God "changed" his plan to account for the variables we created and proposed.

So, when God says in Scripture that he changed his mind, I read that more as him saying, "When I set eternity into motion, I knew you would say/do this and I adjusted my plan to account for your actions/requests."

And this kind of example is exactly why I say that maybe we don't (or can't) understand it fully.

My point in all of that was more to show the feminized inconsistency that Christians tend to want to explain away Satan and sin, but refuse to apply consistent logic when the same reasoning would imply that Eve was an afterthought and Adam was God's primary creation of humanity.

[–]RedPillCoachEndorsed | MRP Mod0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rocknrollchuckMod | 50M | Married 11 yrs0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

To attempt to prove the attributes of God by human logic would be futile, like an ant trying to understand how a plane flies. The point of our existence, according to the Bible, is to glorify God through our lives.

God has a pretty good idea and could probably 'cheat' and check on any solution but He doesn't control every atom and every molecule.

I think He does control everything, though there are varying degrees of control.

He doesn't even control the human heart or the human brain. Really, how boring would that be if He did?

He controls everything, but we have free will. This is where the apparent disconnect is. Because if He completely controls us, we have no free will. If we have free will, then He controls things to a certain extent but leaves room for our free will choices.

Really, how boring would that be if He did?

God is not concerned with being "entertained" or "bored." He is most concerned with His own glory.

I have never believed that God knows all and sees all and that platitudes have, in some cases, been replaced for reality. Just because a Hebrew chants about the all knowing and all seeing God doesn't make it so.

So you don't believe what the Bible says about God either?

[–]RedPillCoachEndorsed | MRP Mod0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Proverbs and Psalms mentions many times how the Earth is "flat." It talks about the "corners of the world" and "the Earth as God's footstool." I don't see this as error but allegory. The writer is using an allegory and platitude in the poetry and prose that he used.

I believe that platitudes and prayers to "almighty God" does not necessarily mean the Bible is saying that he is almighty. It took 6 days to make the universe, not a finger snap. The Islamic god is almighty, all knowing, and all seeing who takes pleasure in causing humans harm. Some are sent to the left (to Hell) and some are sent to the right (to Heaven) and Allah takes pleasure in both. The God I know is not like that. An almighty God who is perfectly good at all times in a fallen, evil world is a contradiction. If God does not give up some control in this evil world then He is responsible for all of it, including the evil and I don't buy it.

[–]rocknrollchuckMod | 50M | Married 11 yrs0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Proverbs and Psalms mentions many times how the Earth is "flat." It talks about the "corners of the world" and "the Earth as God's footstool." I don't see this as error but allegory. The writer is using an allegory and platitude in the poetry and prose that he used.

Agreed. Just like the sun "rises and sets."

I believe that platitudes and prayers to "almighty God" does not necessarily mean the Bible is saying that he is almighty.

Are we reading the same book? I don't see how you can possibly read the Bible and NOT come to the conclusion that it speaks of God as all-powerful and mighty. Unless you choose to just not believe what is written, or "interpret" things differently that have a plainly understood meaning.

It took 6 days to make the universe, not a finger snap.

You don't think He could have created the universe and everything in it instantly? I think He took 6 days to make the universe because He enjoyed watching it all come together.

The Islamic god is almighty, all knowing, and all seeing who takes pleasure in causing humans harm. Some are sent to the left (to Hell) and some are sent to the right (to Heaven) and Allah takes pleasure in both.

Ezekiel 18:23 "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?"

Ezekiel 33:11 "Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways! Why will you die, people of Israel?’"

Allah and the God of the Bible are NOT the same God. But the God of the Bible does send people to heaven or hell based on repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

An almighty God who is perfectly good at all times in a fallen, evil world is a contradiction. If God does not give up some control in this evil world then He is responsible for all of it, including the evil and I don't buy it.

God is good, perfect and holy. If He created us as robots, there would be no evil. He created us with free will instead, so we can choose to do good or do evil. This does not mean God is responsible for evil - it means that He allows mankind to make evil choices because that's how free will works.

So why did He give us free will anyway? Why not just create us as beings who would love and serve Him obediently at all times? God desires glory for Himself. He created us with free will so we can choose or reject Him. When a human being with free will chooses obedience to God when he has the choice to reject Him, this results in the greatest glory to God because it is freely given. Unfortunately evil comes as the other side of that freedom, and many make that choice.

I suppose, in a way, that God IS responsible for everything in this world including the evil. This does not mean that God caused these acts, for this would make God the author of evil. Rather it means that God, foreknowing how men will act under various circumstances, determined beforehand to permit them so to act; thus making the acts certain to come to pass as parts of His total plan, yet leaving all men fully responsible for what they do (Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23). For if God foreknows all events, then they are just as certain as if they were predestined.

[–]WhitifiedBlue Target BAZOOKA0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rocknrollchuckMod | 50M | Married 11 yrs0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WhitifiedBlue Target BAZOOKA0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPillCoachEndorsed | MRP Mod0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link