What is our church doing about this?

[John317]

John, my friend, I must disagree with some of what you have stated in regard to women, their being created for the sexual pleasure of men, and thinking that the Bible supports such:

I don't think we disagree here. All I am saying is that according to the Bible the female, as opposed to the male, was created to give the male sexual pleasure (within, of course, the context of marriage). I'm not suggesting that is THE reason the female was created, only that it is one of the purposes of God in creating woman to complement man.

Quote:

Raping women is certainly a great sin, an abomination in God's eyes. No doubt about it. But it is a "natural" act in the sense that the book of Romans uses the word "natural".

Quote:

Sexual inercourse is a natural act. It is natural for both men and women to obtain pleasure from an act of sexual intercourse. But, rape is not about sex. Rape is about violence. Rape is an act of violence against the one raped. From the standpoint that rape is not an act of sex, rape is never a natural act. Rape is a pervison.

I certainly don't disagree with that.

Here's what I meant by "natural." I mean that the coming together of the male with the female is a natural act. The male coming together with another male is not natural. The male's desire for the female is natural. His desire for another male in that way is against nature. Rape is a perversion of something good that God created, and thus it is using that which God made to be used in a context of love and commitment and using it instead for totally selfish and sinful purposes.

I agree that most rape is about violence. However, I have personally witnessed rape in situations where sex was definitely the main reason reason for it.

Quote:

God meant the female for the male for his sexual pleasure.

Quote:

That is certainly an interesting view of the role and place of women. They were created, at least in part, for the sexual pleasure of men.

I don't mean that is the only reason she was created or even that it is a primary reason. But it seems obvious to me that God made the male and the female in such a way as to find sexual fulfillment and satisfaction with one another.

Quote:

You could have balanced your comment by stating that men were created, in part, for the sexual pleasure of women. But, you did not. The implication of your post is that men and women do not have equality in roles. Women were created, in part, for the sexual pleasure of men, but there is no equality in having men created for their sexual pleasure.

Yes, there is no question that God created woman in such a way that she may gain sexual pleasure from the male. I never intended to give the impression that I thought otherwise. However, I don't see the Bible as teaching that Adam was made FOR Eve. Obviously when God made Adam, the Creator knew that a female would be needed in order to produce other humans, so in that sense, it is true that Adam was also made to complement Eve. But the Bible never says that Adam was made FOR Eve. On the other hand, it says that Eve was made FOR Adam. In fact, Gen. 2: 18, portrays God as saying, "I will make him [Adam] a helper suitable for him." This idea is repeated in verse 20.

I simply prefer to express it the way the Bible does. If I could find somewhere where the Bible says that God made Adam for Eve, then I would use both expressions.

Quote:

Romans 1 calls sex between a male and female "the natural use of the woman."

Quote:

I do not find any verse in Romans 1 that says: "Sex between a male and female is the natural use of women."

I assume you base your thinking on the following:

Quote:

Even the women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Romans 1:26b NIV

and

Quote:

In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women. . .Romans 1:27a NIV

Let me note first that the above Biblical passage deal with the sexuality of both men and women. You have focused on men and the women who were created, in part, for their sexual pleasure. While the Bible in the above passage (whatever it means) has treated men and women equally, you have not.

We don't disagree. The only point I was making is that sexual relations between the male and the female is natural, or according to God's original plan, and that sexual relations between males or between females, is unnatural, or against nature.

Quote:

Secondly, the above quotes does tell us that there is a natural sexual relationship for both women and for men. But, it does not tell us in either case that one was created for the sexual pleasure of the other.

True, but again my only point in quoting them was to show that God meant men and women to have sexual relations and not men with men or women with women. That is, sexual relations between men is "natural," but for men to have sexual relations with other men is "unnatural" in the sense that it was not a part of God's plan.

Quote:

John, you have gone beyond what the Bible says in your comment that women were created, in part, for the sexual pleasure of men.

Do you believe God created the male to find sexual fulfillment? If so, with whom do you believe the Bible teaches God planned for the male to find that sexual fulfillment?

Again, by saying the female was made for the sexual pleasure of the male, all I am meaning to convey is that God did not plan for men to find pleasure in sex with other men but rather in women.

Regards,

"John 3: 17"

[David Koot]

Nup - spoke to this a few pages ago. 'Equal' does not mean 'identical'. 2 + 3 = 5.

I have not followed the thread from the beginning. Just happened to note a couple of assertions made about the words in a couple of verses, and that piqued my interest. But as for the example you give . . . one could very properly cite that example in support of the position that being "one" does not mean that both parties are in every respect "equal."

Looks to me, generally, (without any reflection on Bravus) that Shane may have a good point. Some politically correct liberals are supporting the feminist agenda. That, undoubtedly, is their Constitutional right. However, if they claim Scriptural support for their agenda, that is something to be carefully evaluated. Perhaps it might be more accurate for a supporter of the feminist agenda to simply so state. The Bible does, indeed, speak clearly to the point--which is why many feminists do not like the Bible, in particular the writings of Paul on the subject. (Believe me, I have heard the complaints--at length!) As Ellen G. White put it, "modern Eves" are not satisfied with their role, and push for more.

Cheers

[David Koot]

I never said they were the same, identical in all respects, or given the identical tasks. That is not what is meant by equality or oneness.

[Woody]

Quote:

If we are practicing them, it is proof that we have not totally surrendered our lives to Him.

I do not know of anyone who is totally surrendered by evidence of good works.

We ALL fail and fall short of the Glory of God.

If your focus is on your works or the works of others ... instead of the Works of God... then you will be decieved.

[olger]

Hello Bravus, from the Northern hemisphere. I think I understand your mathematical equation. Thanks.

Tom, I also hear what you are saying and will add this. Man & woman are equal -- in the economy of salvation. No messing with that. I also hope you are not equating my post (# 146233, on page 4) regarding the Biblical federal headship of man with another chauvinist put-down of woman. I am aware of the abuses of men over the years, and I am also aware of the feminist abuses of God's created order. Both are wrong, and I do not intend to add to them. To do so would sit heavily on my conscience.

The issue of so-called equality of men and women touches the very foundation of Christian faith, for it goes deep into the nature of God and the great mystery of which the apostle Paul writes in his letter to the Ephesians. For years I have watched with increasing dismay the destruction the feminist movement has wrought in the world, in the church, in Christian homes and marriages, and in personalities. I have studied the torturous arguments of those who would persuade us that Galatians 3:28 cancels out everything the author says elsewhere in his epistles about the vital distinctions between men and women. I have listened to the endless discussions of Paul’s rabbinic prejudice and cultural insularity.

I have delved into the meaning of the Greek word hupotasso (“to arrange under,” “to be under obedience,” “to put under,” “to subdue unto,” “to subject to,” “to be in subjection to,” to submit self unto”) and have on a few occasions been asked to debate those who would rewrite history, literature, psychology, and the BIBLE itself to make them palatable to the woman of the late twentieth century.

The subject is not a clerical issue, nor is it hierarchical, situational, historical, or experimental; it is biblical! It is a theological mystery representing Christ and the church.

In summary, you have not yet demonstrated that the Fall is the origin of male-female role distinctions, and until you do we cannot logically enter into a discussion of moral restoration.

Kind regards,

oG

[Tom Wetmore]

...Then you need to precisely state your definition, and provide support for it--or simply state it to be your own understanding.

Mr. Koot, as an ex-lawyer, you should know very well that words need not be defined when they are used and intended to be understood with there ordinary meaning. As a person writing in English to people who generally should be assume to read and understand English there should be no need to define words I use. The burden rests on those deficient in English to acquire and use an good English dictionary, on their own time, without wasting everyone else's time questioning and quibbling over semantics.

Originally Posted By: David Koot

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

If they were both given rulership together without distinction,

That appears to be an assumption. It is not necessarily true, by the terms of the verse.

It says plainly what it says and contains no distinction. Your disagreement is a wholly unsupported, and wrong, opinion given the clear and unambiguous meaning of the terms of the verse.

Originally Posted By: David Koot

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

wouldn't you say that they are given equal roles of headship over all creation?

A non sequitur which appears to be based on the assumption mentioned above. Nor is it so stated in the verse.

No it is quite a clear sequitur if one is willing to read and understand what is stated in the verse without reading into it presupposed conclusions about what one thinks they would like to prove apart from any known reality.

David you are simply being argumentative without supporting your disagreement with any substantive evidence. Disagreeing using naked conclusions, is simply being disagreeable. The usual intent for such boorish forum behavior is to derail a discussion.

Enough said -

Tom

[there buster]

Misstating a case and then 'refuting' it is called a straw man argument.

You and the scarecrow have fun!

[cardw]

David,

When someone responds to my views with a children's song then the response I gave is the only one they deserve. If you would read a little deeper you would see that my response was designed to point out the absurdity of understanding anything without one's intellect.

Here is the context

Quote:

Quote:

I choose the Bible. I don't trust my intellect and I don't trust the intellect of others either. Since organizations are all made up of sinners like me, I don't trust them either. I choose to place my trust in the Bible. The B - I - B - L - E, yes thats the book for me, I stand alone on the Word of God, the B - I - B - L - E

Well that explains a lot. Its quite evident that you don't use your intellect to read the Bible either.

As another poster pointed out we have to use our intellect to interpret the Bible. This idea that the Bible is out there on its own as some source of intelligible truth is nonsense as amply demonstrated by the varied and opposing views within this very topic of what the Bible actually says about the equality of men and women.

[David Koot]

I never said they were the same, identical in all respects, or given the identical tasks. That is not what is meant by equality or oneness.

[David Koot]

Misstating a case and then 'refuting' it is called a straw man argument.

You and the scarecrow have fun!

Ahh, here we go, the tag team is at it again! In this case, the case has not been misstated, and the original supposition is just that--supposition. But make a REAL effort to be civil. It will reflect better on you. Stick to the issues, and TRY to be civil. You can do it, if you try. You can help make this a kinder, gentler place, and perhaps avoid the comparison you referred to another thread.

[Gregory Matthews]

Bravus, if you want to have some fun, tell them that:

01 + 01 = 10

and that

10 + 10 = 100

Do you think the peoplehere could handle that?

[Bravus]

As I may have said here before:

There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary and those who have a social life.

[Tom Wetmore]

Mr. Koot, thanks for confirming precisely what I concluded with in my last post.

You seem to be the only one here not understanding what I posted. And I am quite certain that you are smart enough to know that you are not likely to honestly be in that class of reader needing remedial help in basic English comprehension.

EDD is quite right...

straw men... and renewal of further Adventures in Missing the Point...

:R

Tom

[there buster]

Quote:

Ahh, here we go, the tag team is at it again!

The Karpmann Drama Triangle

Controller -------- Rescuer

..........\.........../

...........\........./

............\......./

.............\...../

..............\.../

..............Victim

Not many manipulators can pull off the Victim-Controller-Rescuer oscillation in one post.

"Ahh, here we go, the tag team is at it again!" Victim

"make a REAL effort" Controller

"It will reflect better on you." Rescuer

"Stick to the issues, and TRY to be civil" Controller

"You can do it, if you try. You can help make this a kinder, gentler place, and perhaps " Rescuer

"avoid the comparison you referred to another thread." Controller (implied threat)

That's a keeper.

By my count that's six different roles in just 77 words!

Rarely do I find such an excellent specimen for my boundaries workshop!

[there buster]

Quote:

01 + 01 = 10

and that

10 + 10 = 100

I thought 1 +9 = A

But then, maybe someone put a hex on me.

[there buster]

Now, rather than manipulation and insinuation, back to the facts.

Here is the way you stated the case:

Quote:

1) Genesis 2 says they were created equal;

2) Equality may be inferred from the words used in Gen. 1 and 2;

3) A literary device in ch. 1 shows equality;

4) Adam did not give Eve her name until after the Fall. That shows equality before the Fall.

Here is what I actually stated:

Quote:

So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.

Both male and female were 'man.'

There was no need for headship for the simple reason that they were in perfect accord. They were one.

The evidence of the text is that they were one. You may disagree, but then you need to supply an alternate logical explanation for the text, not simply declare it "supposition."

The literary device shows unity, not equality.

I said:

Quote:

neither Man nor Woman has a separate identity until after the Fall. Then, and only then, does Adam name her Eve. Until then he is man (Heb: iysh) and she is woman (Heb: ishshah), and they are Adam.

which you transmuted into:

Quote:

Adam did not give Eve her name until after the Fall. That shows equality before the Fall.

Once again, a misstatement. My claim is not about equality, but about unity. Eve is not given a name, a separate identity, until after the fall. Until then, they remain as they were described in Genesis 1: man, male and female.

I am simply trying to describe what I see in the text. You are trying to shoehorn concepts into the text which the text does not raise.

A real attempt to understand the text does not take the form of, "You're wrong, equality is not in the text," but rather, "The text indicates this or that, instead of. . ."

[David Koot]

The Karpmann Drama Triangle

Just stick to the issues, please.

[David Koot]

You seem to be the only one here not understanding what I posted . . . renewal of further Adventures in Missing the Point...

Once again, you may, indeed, have your own issues which you express in, perhaps, your own way. You certainly are entitled to do so. The issue I am addressing in whether or not Gen. 1 and 2 give evidence from the words used, about equality vs. inequality between Adam and Eve before the Fall--and, as part of that question, whether or not there was any headship as between them, based on the information contained in those two chapters.

Those specific issues are what I am, and will be addressing.

[there buster]

Quote:

Just stick to the issues, please.

There are two problems with that.

1. You raised the issue of behavior in the earlier post. I would have had nothing to diagnose if you hadn't written it. So I was sticking to the issue you raised.

2. I would have missed out on a truly artful specimen of attempted manipulation. I can assure you that many will benefit from it's example in the future. The most common trips around the Karpmann triangle are oral, and hard to remember. And seldom do they exhibit such range and economy at the same time. Many practice for years without reaching such a level.

[David Koot]

Here is the way you stated the case:

1) Genesis 2 says they were created equal;

2) Equality may be inferred from the words used in Gen. 1 and 2;

3) A literary device in ch. 1 shows equality;

4) Adam did not give Eve her name until after the Fall. That shows equality before the Fall.

[David Koot]

You raised the issue of behavior in the earlier post.

You had already started down your usual road of ridiculing those who disagree with you, by the time of post 146335. As I saw the typical pattern develop, I was in hopes of redirecting to an issue orientation. Let's all hope that the posts can remain on topic and avoid getting into personal confrontations and ridicule. It can be done.

[David Koot]

Ah..would this be a case of the pot calling the kettle black...it must be painful to takes ones own advice!

Ahh yes, the third party--three liberals who frequently team up to ridicule those who disagree with them. How about taking your own advice--"back to topic."

I know of a number of liberals who do not stoop to such tactics. They are terrific people, and worthy of emulation.

[Planey]

Biologically we are all women first. The development of male characteristics doesn't occur until about 9 weeks.

If we were to interpret the biological "book" like we do the Bible some people might conclude that males are deformed females.

Or perhaps that women are incomplete males.

Graeme

[Woody]

Post from Cardw ...

Quote:

Biologically we are all women first. The development of male characteristics doesn't occur until about 9 weeks.

If we were to interpret the biological "book" like we do the Bible some people might conclude that males are deformed females.

I had always thought I felt a little deformed. Of course now my body confirms this.

But also .... I would wonder if this is what is meant when they ask the guys to demonstrate their feminine side. But since it has been some time since I've spent time in the womb ... I have forgotten HOW !!!

[there buster]

Quote:

You had already started down your usual road of ridiculing those who disagree with you

as you like to assert: Incorrect.

As you fail to do, I will give evidence. I did not ridicule you. I indicated that you had raised a straw man, and so long as you were arguing that point, I was not involved-- only you and your scarecrow (a scarecrow is a straw man).