Knowing Your Enemy: Satan's Attacks On SDAs

[John317]

Good point, Pam. Adam was no doubt looking for someone he could communicate with. I think that's one purpose that God had for telling Adam to name the animals. He wanted Adam to desire a mate and to realize his need of one-- of one who could talk to him.

[John317]

So in other words, the Bible is not really inspired by God at all. Not even the OT. Just a bunch of male chauvinist pigs framing the way it reads to suit themselves, and make the woman look bad.

I think it's hilarious, (absurd really) how you pick and choose which parts of the Bible should be taken seriously, and which parts should be taken with a grain of salt. That's why your theology is so whacky, because you are obviously allowing yourself to be led by your own imagination.

You should try looking at scripture as the word of God sometime. It worked really well for the prophets, the disciples, and the apostles. Even Jesus said that's what it was. And He should know.

Even the translators couldn't go any farther than God allowed when it came to distorting His word. History shows that God has kept a watchful eye on His word all down through the centuries. Satan would have destroyed it long ago if it were possible. History shows that he certainly has tried. I guess the next best thing would be to get some people (like yourself) to believing it's not really the inspired word of God.

This is well worth posting again. So many good and important points. I hope Dr. Rich, Wayfinder,and Musicman respond directly to this post.

[John317]

....From what we (mm and I) have already written it is clear (to me) that we already answered all of your questions even though you keep saying we have not done so. Re-hashing what was already written about is something at this point I don't want to do, especially when you state that we are 'defending' our opinions.

Actually you haven't even begun to answer the questions. This thread alone has many posts that you either didn't read or didn't both to respond to. I could be wrong but I get the distinct impression that you didn't even bother to read them.

You don't bother to respond to specific points of evidence or questions, but rather you usually make general statements of denial and then add more of your opinions without showing solid Bible evidence. A little later, I will come back to this message and add specific post numbers of the posts you have neglected to answer.

[John317]

5) John, it is obvious that you have never been married. Since when does any woman (wife, girl friend, sister, mother) consult any man for advice on anything they believe they already are certain about. Get real.

I've been married, MM. I'm married now and have 4 children. I have two daughers who are married, and one of them has had 4 kids herself.

I grew up with two sisters and have been married to two different women at different times for a total of 29 years.

Remember, MM, we're talking about Eve before she fell into sin. Are you claiming that perfect, sinless Eve would not have talked to Adam if Adam had been there?

Here are pictures of my oldest daughter and my wife. I posted the one of my daughter yesterday on the Photobooth.

[John317]

11. Satan was already evil by the time Adam was created--why?

Because he chose to rebel in heaven against God and Christ prior to the creation of human beings. I thought you knew this.

[Musicman1228]

Never once have Dr. Rich or I said that you must believe anything that we say just because we say it. Yet I do find it interesting that when a text is very clear in it's meaning, as is Gen.3:6, you will find a way to make it say something else entirely. I don't understand why you need to do this, but you do.

You now know what my belief is on this and many other subjects, and you should also know that while I am willing to discuss any of this with any of you it will take a lot more than you have offered so far in the way of proof to change my positions on any of this. Neither am I trying to change your minds to my way of thinking. I think it best to make our conversations an exchange of ideas rather than persuasive argument.

[John317]

6) It was up to Adam to protect Eve, and therefore we can believe that Adam would have said or done something to protect her, since Adam knew she was venturing on dangerous territory.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

6) Again, speculation not born out in the facts. Adam and Eve were complete equals; there was no distinction of authority between them.

Yes, they were created equals. God did not give to Adam an inferior help-meet. But they had different roles and functions.

This is proved by the very fact that God created Adam first and gave only him the responsibility of naming the animals. Also by the the fact that it was to Adam alone that God directly gave the command not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Also, God obviously gave to Adam physical strength and muscles that he didn't give to Eve.

Sin and death didn't come to humans because of Eve's sin but rather because of Adam's sin. It was Adam's sin that brought death to the human race. Had Eve alone sinned and Adam remained faithful to God, Adam and his posterity wouldn't have experienced death. God told Adam if Adam disobeyed and ate of the fruit, he woul die. God didn't tell Adam he would die if Eve ate of it.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

So why would it be Adam's responsibility to 'protect' Eve from anything?

Why do you think God gave Adam the command about the Tree BEFORE Eve was even in existence? Since God created Adam first and gave to Adam the responsibility of naming all the animals, it stands to reason that God was putting Adam in charge of the creation.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Besides that, they were already in a protected Garden.

Yes, a Garden where evil in the form of Satan lurked.

Which of the pair had the least experience? Which of the pair was the most innocent? Which of the pair, therefore, was the likliest to fall if tempted when alone?

Wouldn't reason alone indicate that Eve needed to stay with her husband? Or would reason dictate that after wandering all around the Garden by himself for the better part of the day, that Adam (more than Eve) was the one most likely to fall if tempted when alone?

You be the judge, MM. What is your answer?

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Think about this; In everything but gender Adam was Eve, and Eve was Adam. That is, intellectually, emotionally they were identical twins.

You forget important differences: God made Adam first and gave him the command to leave the Tree alone, and God gave Adam the sole responsibility of naming the animals. Naming the animals was a sign of control over the animals. Adam also gave the woman her name, Woman.

Eve did not name anyone until after sin.

This by itself shows that they weren't identical twins. Adam had already had very significant life experiences, and had shown his dominion over the rest of the creation, before Eve even came into being.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

So what one thought the other had the same thought. Adam didn't say anything because he didn't need too, Eve was saying the same thing he would say.

Is this your final answer, MM-- that Adam didn't say anything at the Tree simply because he didn't need to say anything?

Is this the best answer your can give as to why Adam said nothing while he listened to Satan tempt Adam's beloved Eve and then watched as she essentially committed suicide (even after God said what He did to Adam in Gen. 2: 16, 17)?

Adam didn't "need to" keep Eve from dying?

So Adam stood like a dumb dog that doesn't bark when he should have warned her of Satan's deceptions? Or do you believe that Adam, too, was completely deceived by the devil? You could only believe Adam was deceived if you deliberately choose to ignore what God inspired the apostle Paul to write in 1 Tim. 2: 14.

[John317]

I do find it interesting that when a text is very clear in it's meaning, as is Gen.3:6, you will find a way to make it say something else entirely. I don't understand why you need to do this, but you do.

This is your conclusion. But how do you reach the conclusion that Gen. 3: 6 means Adam was in Eve's presence when she was tempted?

Please respond directly to the arguments I make in the following paragraph. I show below why the text doesn't mean she and Adam were side by side at the tree when Satan tempted Eve.

How is my reasoning and the evidence in error?

Quote:

If you are going to dispute this, you will need to do more than merely say Ellen White is wrong or that the text says "she gave to her husband with her." The expression simply means that Eve gave some of the fruit to the companion that God had put in the garden with her. It doesn't make sense to say that Eve gave some of the fruit to her husand who was with her at the time she gave it to him. To merely state that she gave some of the fruit to Adam while he was near her would be redundant. She could only give it to him when he was with her. When else would she give it to Adam? Certainly not when he was away from her. Her arm didn't stretch far enough so that she could give fruit to him when he was anywhere but with her. Therefore the expression "with her" isn't intended to give the impression that Adam was standing beside her at the tree while Eve was being tempted. The expression, rather, is obviously intended to emphasize that after Eve committed this terrible sin, she even went so far as to cause her beloved companion to sin also, the very one who God made to be "with her" in the garden.

[Dr. Rich]

About God finding Adam a suitable mate/helper--who did the search? Adam or God? If Adam was confined to the garden, how could he search all over the world for a suitable mate/helper? What does the word "suitable" mean? Just a sexual partner? No, I believe it meant that Adam had to have a partner/mate/helper that was sinless as was he and none of the women all over the earth were sinless because all of them believed that Satan was their god.

And did God actually have Adam name the animals (get to know them) before He made Eve? If so, as you suggest and I will agree, tell me sincerely and honestly to your best understanding, how long would it take for Adam to actually name all of the animals? An hour? How large do you consider the garden was? How many different kinds of animals did God make to fit into the garden? How long did it take for the animals to go into the ark? And again, why put Adam in a special garden when God said to multiply and fill the whole earth? The only reason I can come up with is that Satan had deceived the whole world and God wanted Adam set apart from the world like He did with Israel. Can you give me a better reason?

Oh, by the way, Moses did not put in the chapter break so chapter one of Gen. should then include the first three verses of chapter 2.

You still did not answer my question on the bloodline of Adam. Can you please? How did all the races all get formed? Who created all of the races and when?

[John317]

About God finding Adam a suitable mate/helper--who did the search? Adam or God? If Adam was confined to the garden, how could he search all over the world for a suitable mate/helper?

But it doesn't say either God or Adam "searched all over the world," does it? What verse are you referring to?

The narrative gives evidence that it isn't speaking of all the animals all over the world but rather of the birds and the lifestock and to every beast of the field in the Garden. We don't know how many animals were in the Garden. He certainly didn't wander over all the earth looking at all the animals everywhere. The text neither implies nor requires this.

Do you suppose that God didn't know what He had made and that He therefore had to search all over the world for a suitable mate for Adam? It seems clear that it's talking about Adam realizing that among all the animals that he observed, he didn't see any that were suitable partners for him.

[John317]

... What does the word "suitable" mean? Just a sexual partner?

The word is Strong's #5048, nawgad, and means "counterpart," "mate," "a front, i.e., part opposite; over against or before." (See Complete Word Study of the Old Testament.)

Without the mate or counterpart, one is incomplete, just as a male dog is incomplete without a female dog. The female dog is obviously made to be with a male. You might also compare it to a door without a doorway. They fit, so to speak. Without the female, the male part is rather useless, and vice versa. Adam had to have noticed this as he observed the animals and compared himself.

Contary to what Musicman said earlier, Adam and Eve were opposites. If they had been the same, they wouldn't have been made for each other. The one was a perfect "fit" for the other and helped fulfill their needs and desires. Doubtless Adam had seen this among the animals,and without question he had longed for the same kind of mate.

But yes, you are absolutely right that it is talking about more than merely a sex partner. On other hand, without the sexual aspect, they wouldn't have been counterparts, because sex is so important in the human makeup. That is why homosexual partnerships don't fulfill God's plan for humans. The male wasn't made to be with a male. God's image isn't revealed in the male with a male, and the male isn't made to submit sexually to the male. When a male submits sexually to a male, he is essentially denying or rejecting his maleness. He is saying (whether he consciously realizes it or not) that he needs a male to be whole. This is an outright rejection of God's plan for the male and the female.

[John317]

... No, I believe [the word suitable"] meant that Adam had to have a partner/mate/helper that was sinless as was he and none of the women all over the earth were sinless because all of them believed that Satan was their god.

This is pure conjecture and has no Bible support at all. If you beleive it does, give the references or quote the verses in the Bible that teach this.

You and Wayfinder and Musicman talk about letting the Bible speak for itself and not reading things into the text, but this is a good example of your doing exactly what you decry in others. At the same time, however, Musicman objects to my understanding of the use of the words "with her" in Gen. 3: 6, a use that is in harmony with the language and the context. Yet you evidently think nothing of talking about the sinful women all over the earth who accepted Satan as their god BEFORE Adam was created--- despite the fact that the Bible lacks any such teaching.

I urge you to either show the text(s) that teaches this clearly or stop teaching such false beliefs.

[John317]

Oh, by the way, Moses did not put in the chapter break so chapter one of Gen. should then include the first three verses of chapter 2.

Sure, that's not a problem. In fact, in the original there are no breaks between words, let alone between chapters and verses. And in the Greek, there was originally no breaks between words and neither was there any such things are periods or question marks, etc.

It looked like this:

ALLTHINGSWEREMADETHROUGHHIMANDWITHOUTHIMNOTHINGWASMADETHATWASMADEINHIMWASLI

FEANDTHELIFEWASTHELIGHTOFMEN

[John317]

...You still did not answer my question on the bloodline of Adam. Can you please? How did all the races all get formed? Who created all of the races and when?

Can you prove that all the human races in existence today could not possibly have descended from Adam and Eve?

I believe just what the Bible teaches-- that God created all the races of men and that all of us are sons of Adam. I believe the Bible teaches that the human race was created between 6 and 10 thousand years ago. I am aware that many scientists don't beleive it, but then many scientists don't believe in God or in Christ. I don't base my spiritual and religious and ethical beliefs on either scientists or on what the world calls science. I respect true science but I don't accept the conclusions of science when it contradics the testimony of the Bible or the Spirit of prophecy. I trust the Bible over any so-called science.

[John317]

And did God actually have Adam name the animals (get to know them) before He made Eve?

It says Adam did, yes.

Originally Posted By: Dr Rich

If so, as you suggest and I will agree, tell me sincerely and honestly to your best understanding, how long would it take for Adam to actually name all of the animals? An hour?

We have no idea, Dr. Rich. It is all guesswork. I would guess it could have taken up to 8 or 10 hours. But it's really impossible to tell for sure, of course.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

How large do you consider the garden was?

Again, we really have no idea. It is all speculation at this point.

But let's say it was about 5 square miles. Or let's say it was as big as Central Park in NYC. Not nearly as big as Luxemburg Gardens in Paris.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

How many different kinds of animals did God make to fit into the garden?

Who knows? Depends on the kinds of animals you are including. I doubt if the Bible is saying Adam named every kind of living animal, including insects and rodents, etc. Sounds like the Bible is talking about the birds and the major animals such as cattle, horses, elephants, etc.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

How long did it take for the animals to go into the ark?

We don't know. It probably took several days at least, maybe four or five days. But that is unrelated to the creation account because the animals would have increased in both species and numbers between creation and the flood. And besides, the animals taken into the ark almost certainly included animals that were not in the Garden. There's no reason to believe that all life-forms were in the Garden.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

And again, why put Adam in a special garden when God said to multiply and fill the whole earth?

Did God give Adam a limited amount of time-- or a certain schedule-- in which to fill the whole earth?

The fact that God placed Adam and Eve in the Garden is no evidence that they wouldn't have been able to go outside the Garden at some point in the future. No doubt the Garden was like a nest which God made for them, and when they became ready to venture out of it, they would have been able to go. The Garden was not a prison. It was the most beautiful place that man could ever be in, so it wasn't as if they wanted to leave it. But they had to pass a term of testing, or probation. They had to prove their loyalty to their Creator, at which point they would have been given complete access to the tree of life and made immortal, not subject to death.

Originally Posted By: Dr. Rich

The only reason I can come up with is that Satan had deceived the whole world and God wanted Adam set apart from the world like He did with Israel. Can you give me a better reason?

But can't you see, Dr. Rich, that you are making up teachings that have no solid foundation in Scripture. The Bible says nothing about God's making humans before Adam. What your doctrine requires is a fall of humans into sin before the Fall of Adam and Eve. Where do you find evidence of such, that is, outside of your misinterpretation of Gen. 1 and 2?

God wisely chose not to let the human race have access to the Tree of Life and thus become immortal before they proved their loyalty to Him.

[John317]

You now know what my belief is on this and many other subjects, and you should also know that while I am willing to discuss any of this with any of you it will take a lot more than you have offered so far in the way of proof to change my positions on any of this.

But I truly doubt you have read and seriously considered the majority of my posts on this thread, MM. Your and Dr. Rich's posts indicate to me that you have only glanced at some of them, because you haven't responded to many of the questions on the posts, and you appear to be unaware that you and Dr. Rich have hardly touched the questions. Yet at the same time you and he claim that you've already answered all of them.

I asked before-- and I don't believe you've answered-- whether on your radio program you have had a panel of theologians or Bible teachers who are able to challenge your teachings. Have you ever recorded any such program? If not, why not? And if so, who were they and how can I listen to it?

[Musicman1228]

John said, "Also, God obviously gave to Adam physical strength and muscles that he didn't give to Eve."

I'm not going to argue with you over this topic any further after I make this comment:

Your above statement shows your lack of understanding of even the most basic knowledge of genetics. Genetically, Eve was Adam's twin sister. This fact is 'obvious' given where God acquired the genetic material for Eve. Therefore, it is 'obvious' from this information that Eve would have had the same stature and relative strength as Adam, taking into consideration the effect of the difference in the one chromosome (xx/xy).

That being said, NO ONE knows what either Adam or Eve actually looked like, and what their physical attributes actually were. Therefore, for you to confidently make the above statement shows your hubris and condescension toward women, indicating that they are inferior to you as a man. This is to be expected from a 'Christian' man that believes that everything that Paul said about the role of women it actually true, and that women by dint of both the luck of the genetic draw and subsequent capabilities (physical, mental, emotional) show be subservient to men in all things, because you believe God commanded this.

This attitude really gets my knickers in a twist. Gen. 1:26-27 states that God created MANKIND in the image and likeness of God; creating them male AND FEMALE. Therefore (applied logic-something you are not used to) God has both masculine and feminine characteristics. If God the Father is the masculine characteristic of the Godhead then who would be the feminine characteristic? This could not be the Son of God, because that particular part of God that was born human-Jesus Christ, as he was obviously male. There is only one entity left that could fill this role, and that is the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that is the feminine characteristic of God.

Therefore (there is that pesky logic again), the Holy Spirit (feminine/Mother) is equal in all aspects with God (the Father) and with their Son, Jesus Christ. This equality is reflected in the relationship that God wanted for Adam and Eve, and also for all of humanity. Each member of the Godhead has different roles, none of which are less important that the other. When you think about the role of a Father and Mother in a family and compare those roles with the family of God it is relatively easy to see how both partners assist each other in creating and rearing offspring, which is the primary goal and function of the relationship.

For you, John, to declare by your statements and attitude that women are inferior to men shows near complete misunderstanding of the roles and functions of a family. I do hope that this understanding will change over time to the realization as to what God has designed for human beings, especially those who are to be in the Kingdom of Heaven, and eventually in the Family of God.

[Musicman1228]

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

You now know what my belief is on this and many other subjects, and you should also know that while I am willing to discuss any of this with any of you it will take a lot more than you have offered so far in the way of proof to change my positions on any of this.

But I truly doubt you have read and seriously considered the majority of my posts on this thread, MM. Your and Dr. Rich's posts indicate to me that you have only glanced at some of them, because you haven't responded to many of the questions on the posts, and you appear to be unaware that you and Dr. Rich have hardly touched the questions. Yet at the same time you and he claim that you've already answered all of them.

I asked before-- and I don't believe you've answered-- whether on your radio program you have had a panel of theologians or Bible teachers who are able to challenge your teachings. Have you ever recorded any such program? If not, why not? And if so, who were they and how can I listen to it?

John,

You are welcome any Friday to come on our program and discuss with us any topic you wish. This is a standing invitation to anyone that would appreciate a CIVIL discussion of these topics. We never abuse the honor of having guests on our show by becoming contentious or rude. You can go to our web site and click on the RADIO page, and that will take you to the links for both our Friday "The Bible on Trial" program and our Sabbath morning program "Spirit of Truth". This invitation is extended to everyone. We will even get an toll free number for our Friday program to facilitate your calls. You can contact us either through our private emails or through our ministry email to make arrangements for a particular show date.

[John317]

I asked before-- and I don't believe you've answered-- whether on your radio program you have had a panel of theologians or Bible teachers who are able to challenge your teachings. Have you ever recorded any such program? If not, why not? And if so, who were they and how can I listen to it?

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

You are welcome any Friday to come on our program and discuss with us any topic you wish. This is a standing invitation to anyone that would appreciate a CIVIL discussion of these topics. We never abuse the honor of having guests on our show by becoming contentious or rude. You can go to our web site and click on the RADIO page, and that will take you to the links for both our Friday "The Bible on Trial" program and our Sabbath morning program "Spirit of Truth". This invitation is extended to everyone. We will even get an toll free number for our Friday program to facilitate your calls. You can contact us either through our private emails or through our ministry email to make arrangements for a particular show date.

Thank you that invitation, MM. I will give it some serious thought.

But you did not answer my question:

Have you ever had a panel of theologians or Bible teachers, or even a single one, on your program before? What I'm asking is whether you've had guests on before who did not accept your understanding of Paul and the rest of the NT books that you reject? If so, do you have copies of that program?

[Guest]

But I truly doubt you have read and seriously considered the majority of my posts on this thread, MM. Your and Dr. Rich's posts indicate to me that you have only glanced at some of them, because you haven't responded to many of the questions on the posts, and you appear to be unaware that you and Dr. Rich have hardly touched the questions. Yet at the same time you and he claim that you've already answered all of them.

I've noticed that too John. They never answer the real questions, they just forge ahead. As if to say: "Don't confuse us with facts. All that is irrelevant to what we are doing here".

[John317]

For you, John, to declare by your statements and attitude that women are inferior to men ....

How is saying that men are typically larger and physically stronger show that I believe women are inferior to men? I think what I am stating is a well recognized fact. Or do you deny that most men are taller and stronger than most women?

Women are not inferior to men but they do have different roles than men have. God didn't make women to do the same things that men do. Women have babies for one thing, and therefore it is obvious that they are intended to do something different than men are. That is not saying they are inferior but different. Jesus has a different role and work than the Father, but that doesn't mean Jesus is inferior to the Father. The same applies to people.

As an Army medic, I used to give shots to people. I can tell you that there is a big difference in the muscles of males and females, and this is true among all the races of people. It stands to reason that this had its beginnings in the way God originally created the sexes.

Ellen White says that Adam was taller than Eve, and it stands to reason that since men in all civilizations are taller and have different size of muscles, etc., that God made Adam taller and more muscular. If God didn't do that, why is the average male taller and more muscular and physically stronger than the average woman?

Is it saying women are inferior to men when we don't allow women on men's football and baseball teams and when we don't allow men to box against women boxers? Why is this? Why don't women compete with men in the Olympics in such things as weight lifting and boxing and wrestling?

[Guest]

This could also be another place where men (Adam, Moses, translators) asserted their domination over women by having Eve be the one that sinned? Just blame it on the woman, I say.

[John317]

....Genetically, Eve was Adam's twin sister. This fact is 'obvious' given where God acquired the genetic material for Eve. Therefore, it is 'obvious' from this information that Eve would have had the same stature and relative strength as Adam, taking into consideration the effect of the difference in the one chromosome (xx/xy).

Question: are twin brothers and sisters typically the same height and is the sister physically as strong as her brother? If the brother grows up to be a boxer or weight-lifter, do we find that the sister is able to match him in terms of physical strength?

[John317]

... Gen. 1:26-27 states that God created MANKIND in the image and likeness of God; creating them male AND FEMALE. Therefore (applied logic-something you are not used to)

Are you giving me permission to say such things to you also? According to the rules of applied logic, this is what you are doing when you make these kinds of remarks, MM. If you feel that it's appropriate to say this to someone, by implication you are saying it's right for others to say it to you in return. So when others do this, you have no valid grounds for complaint.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

God has both masculine and feminine characteristics. If God the Father is the masculine characteristic of the Godhead then who would be the feminine characteristic? This could not be the Son of God, because that particular part of God that was born human-Jesus Christ, as he was obviously male. There is only one entity left that could fill this role, and that is the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that is the feminine characteristic of God.

MM, all Persons in the Godhead have what we would consider "feminine characteristics." One of them is not male and the other female. What are the feminine characteristics? God the Father Himself has those characteristics. The Bible compares Him to a mother protecting her children.

But it is improper to suggest that when we speak of members of the Godhead, we are talking about sexual characteristics. Sex is for the purpose of procreation, and God doesn't procreate. None of the members of the Godhead have sex organs or sexual characteristics. Therefore when we speak of God's feminine characteristics, we're not talking about sex in any manner. That is the danger of referring to the Godhead as female.

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

Therefore (there is that pesky logic again), the Holy Spirit (feminine/Mother) is equal in all aspects with God (the Father) and with their Son, Jesus Christ.

How is this logical, MM? Can you show how logic leads you to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is "feminine/Mother"?

I agree that all Persons of the Godhead are equal, but that has nothing to do with one of them being "Mother". The Bible doesn't teach that the Holy Spirit is "Mother."

Originally Posted By: MusicMan

This equality is reflected in the relationship that God wanted for Adam and Eve, and also for all of humanity. Each member of the Godhead has different roles, none of which are less important that the other.

Yes, I agree with this.

Originally Posted By: Musicman

When you think about the role of a Father and Mother in a family and compare those roles with the family of God it is relatively easy to see how both partners assist each other in creating and rearing offspring, which is the primary goal and function of the relationship.

But the above doesn't mean that one of the Person's of the Godhead is female or "Mother." The Bible shows that they all have what we normal consider feminine characteristics, so it is not a matter of one Person being male and another being female. The Bible doesn't support such a view. When the Holy Spirit is referred to in a pronoun, it is either neuter or masculine, never feminine.

[John317]

For you, John, to declare by your statements and attitude that women are inferior to men shows near complete misunderstanding of the roles and functions of a family.

This is absolute nonsense, MM. All I have said is that women are generally not as strong phyiscally as men and that men are generally taller than women.

Please explain (1) how this is inaccurate; (2)how it shows I believe women are inferior to men; and (3) how this shows that I misunderstand the roles and functions of a family?

Originally Posted By: Musicman1228

I do hope that this understanding will change over time to the realization as to what God has designed for human beings, especially those who are to be in the Kingdom of Heaven, and eventually in the Family of God.

Please explain what I've said that is not in harmony with the kingdom of heaven. ARe you saying that it is contrary to the kingdom of heaven for most men to be taller and physically stronger than most women? Where does the Bible teach this?