Another thread about women. . .

[HAMel]

They Ask So Little

Take time to laugh and sing
And play and cuddle them a bit,
Tell them a story now and then
And steal a little time to sit.

And listen to their childish talk
Or take them for a little walk.
Take time to hear their prayers at night,
to really cherish and enjoy.

A little girl with flaxen curls
And the small wonder of a boy,
They ask so little when they're small,
Just love and tenderness, that's all.
(anonymous)

When children are born into a family they must become first priority!

I see no problem with wives working to help out financially but the children need to come first. My son is 40 years old and has been married twice, with both marriages ending in divorce. His first wife was an alcoholic and his second wife was a drug induced Secret Agent for the CIA. She received her orders from the CIA through the television. Yes, my son is/was/familiar with drugs and we attended church on a regular basis.

Who's to blame? Satan is certainly alive and well on planet earth and parents usually don't realize their failures until it's too late..., and that's a shame.

...I do wish the Lord would come back today.

If a woman desires to "top trees" in the Pacific Northwest then go for it..., but only after her children are properly cared for.

 

[jaigner]

Children are the responsibility of both parents. There is no overarching pronouncement that women should be the primary caregivers, although there are obvious physical reasons that mothers need to be more involved when they are babies.

 

[RAdam]

RAdam, I am going to have to respectfully and humbly disagree with you here. When I read Deuteronomy 4 and 6, Ephesians 6, Proverbs 22, and Psalm 78, I see where the training, rearing, molding, and disciplining of the child is implicitly directed at both parents and in many cases explicitly directed at the father only.

I don't mean to take away from the mother's role, but we have to look at what the Bible really says.



This is just my opinion, but take it with a grain of salt. Going into the teaching profession because you want the same hours off as your children is one of the worst reasons that a woman can have for teaching.

A woman should go into the teaching profession because she is called by God. Having the same hours as your children is a side-benefit, not a reason to work.

I've seen these women over the past 27 years. They make terrible teachers. They will tell you to your face that they are only doing it to supplement their husbands' income and to be home with the kids. And because their hearts aren't in their work, their students suffer.




This is very, very true.

It's also true of fathers. Men who are so career minded that they neglect their wives and children are the root of problems also.

1 Timothy 2:15 "Notwithstanding she [the woman] shall be saved in childbearing, if they [the kids] continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

The teaching of the children is the number 1 responsibility of the mother. Yes, both parents are responsible for the kids, but they are the mother's number 1 responsibility.

Now, I did not say that women should go into the teaching profession solely because they would have the same hours as their kids or that all mothers make good teachers. I said that the teaching profession is a good one for mothers because they would have the same hours as their kids in school.

 

[Shortandy]

For those of you who believe women should not work outside the home, run for political office, vote, or should not treat male patients (if a female doctor), I pose these questions:

Would you go out to eat and have a woman serve you, cook your food, or wash your dishes? After all, she may have abandoned her husband, children, and home to go to work.

Do you frequent gas stations where women work outside the home as cashiers?

We could apply this to any thing a person views as wrong. Do you allow men who are gay to cut your hair? Do you allow gay people to serve you when you go out to eat? Do you allow men who cheated on their wives to pump you gas or wash your car? The point is that we interact and allow people we believe are wrong to serve us all the time. So what have you really proved with this post?

 

[Peggy]

I have a problem with people with deeply engrained beliefs that see a woman's worth is directly related to a man. If she has a husband, she is accepted. If she is divorced or single, she is not accepted because she is not fulfilling her "God given role as a help meet."

Why can't women without husband be considered worth of respect?

 

[abcgrad94]

We could apply this to any thing a person views as wrong. Do you allow men who are gay to cut your hair? Do you allow gay people to serve you when you go out to eat? Do you allow men who cheated on their wives to pump you gas or wash your car? The point is that we interact and allow people we believe are wrong to serve us all the time. So what have you really proved with this post?

Thank you, Shortandy. Your posts points out exactly what I'm trying to say. If I refuse to let a g@y person cut my hair because I believe he's living in sin and I disagree with his lifestyle, then it's hypocritical to turn around and knowingly let a g@y person serve me at a restaurant.

I find it interesting that men will not vote for a woman because they disagree wtih her working outside the home, but will turn right around and visit a restaurant and be served by another woman working outside the home.

 

[jaigner]

I have a problem with people with deeply engrained beliefs that see a woman's worth is directly related to a man. If she has a husband, she is accepted. If she is divorced or single, she is not accepted because she is not fulfilling her "God given role as a help meet."

Why can't women without husband be considered worth of respect?

Peggy, you describe a real problem. In fact, the original Hebrew language that gets translated "help meet," which really should be translated something else closer to "completion," describes women as potent, capable individuals just like men. They are not at all "helpers" in the sense that they must hold the flashlight for their husbands or something. Technically, men could be called the "completion" of the woman as the woman is the "completion" of the man.

 

[Jon-Marc]

I have a problem with people with deeply engrained beliefs that see a woman's worth is directly related to a man. If she has a husband, she is accepted. If she is divorced or single, she is not accepted because she is not fulfilling her "God given role as a help meet."

Why can't women without husband be considered worth of respect?

It's the same way with men not having a wife or at least a girlfriend. The typical attitude is. "Why aren't you married? Are you gay?" My dad accused me of being that way because I made it to age 22 as a virgin. That didn't change until my wedding night.

In the eyes of the world, all women should be pure until marriage (which would be best for both genders) and should be married as soon as they're old enough. On the other hand, any male who isn't having sex as soon as he reaches puberty is considered "Gay"--at least by other males.

 

[annsni]

Peggy, you describe a real problem. In fact, the original Hebrew language that gets translated "help meet," which really should be translated something else closer to "completion," describes women as potent, capable individuals just like men. They are not at all "helpers" in the sense that they must hold the flashlight for their husbands or something. Technically, men could be called the "completion" of the woman as the woman is the "completion" of the man.

Your interpretation of the Hebrew word "ezer" is 100% wrong. The definition is "help, succour, one who helps". If it is completion as you say, how does it fit in with this verse that uses the same word:

Deut 33:7 "And this he said of Judah:
"Hear, O LORD, the voice of Judah,
and bring him in to his people.
With your hands contend for him,
and be a help against his adversaries."

Or Psalm 20:2 "May he send you help from the sanctuary
and give you support from Zion!"

Or maybe Daniel 11:34 "When they stumble, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery,"

Do you see that your interpreting "ezer" as completion is 100% wrong?

 

[RAdam]

Proving once again that the greatest bible dictionary is the bible itself. Thank you.

 

[jaigner]

Your interpretation of the Hebrew word "ezer" is 100% wrong. The definition is "help, succour, one who helps". If it is completion as you say, how does it fit in with this verse that uses the same word:

Deut 33:7 "And this he said of Judah:
"Hear, O LORD, the voice of Judah,
and bring him in to his people.
With your hands contend for him,
and be a help against his adversaries."

Or Psalm 20:2 "May he send you help from the sanctuary
and give you support from Zion!"

Or maybe Daniel 11:34 "When they stumble, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery,"

Do you see that your interpreting "ezer" as completion is 100% wrong?

I was actually going with ezer kenegdo This is a powerful, capable kind of help. Rescuing help. (help against adversaries?) This is the kind of help that makes all the difference, not just to make things easier.

And the second part of the term, kenegdo, means "corresponding," "counterpart," "completion," "along side."

You may disagree, which is fine, but that doesn't make me 100% wrong.

 

[annsni]

I was actually going with ezer kenegdo This is a powerful, capable kind of help. Rescuing help. (help against adversaries?) This is the kind of help that makes all the difference, not just to make things easier.

And the second part of the term, kenegdo, means "corresponding," "counterpart," "completion," "along side."

You may disagree, which is fine, but that doesn't make me 100% wrong.

I have very limited education in Hebrew but I do not see ezer kenegdo on Blue Letter Bible or any other online Hebrew study help. I see lots of sites (all egalitarian) stating that it is there but I don't actually see it myself. Can you help me?

 

[annsni]

OK - In further looking at this, I see the term does not mean "complete" but "correspond". That's a big difference.

 

[Shortandy]

Thank you, Shortandy. Your posts points out exactly what I'm trying to say. If I refuse to let a g@y person cut my hair because I believe he's living in sin and I disagree with his lifestyle, then it's hypocritical to turn around and knowingly let a g@y person serve me at a restaurant.

I find it interesting that men will not vote for a woman because they disagree wtih her working outside the home, but will turn right around and visit a restaurant and be served by another woman working outside the home.

My point was that nothing you have stated defends your position that it is okay for a woman to work. The homosexual is wrong, the adulterer is wrong. But it would be impossible to avoid them and not let them serve. You may speak out or vote on your convictions about homosexuality but still let a guy man cut your hair. So a person can still believe that woman is wrong and yet be served by them in the world. I'm not sure you have proven as much as you would like and I wanted to challenge you on it. That was all.

 

[Gina B]

Maybe some of us around here could just cut to the chase and admit they view women as inferior beings. Might save some time to know that they believe these women are unclean and unworthy.

Of course another logical end to the belief that we are talking about means that women shouldn't make clothes, dress children, or drive cars since they could cause someone to stumble or because of their inability to realize their divinely created place of being shoeless, confectionery experts, who are baby making factories...to the glory of God.

Well, if you make bad meals and keep your shoes on, the baby making thing gets tougher, so it's only logical that we should be good at making food and taking our shoes off.

Women stink at driving because we dodge butterflies, but still, we, well, I came here to defend women, but hey. I can't. I LIKE to be barefoot, making babies, and cooking good food. I'm bad at driving.
However, I can also make a decent wage if need be and beat the snot out of anyone who threatens my family, so whatever.

Any man is just as important than me, and I'm no less important than any man.
Different. Equal. Crazy. Sounds like a plan to me...

 

[Cutter]

My point was that nothing you have stated defends your position that it is okay for a woman to work. The homosexual is wrong, the adulterer is wrong. But it would be impossible to avoid them and not let them serve. You may speak out or vote on your convictions about homosexuality but still let a guy man cut your hair. So a person can still believe that woman is wrong and yet be served by them in the world. I'm not sure you have proven as much as you would like and I wanted to challenge you on it. That was all.

Thanks for straightening her out on that ShortAndy. When I read your post I certainly did not believe that you were agreeing with her position, but I did not want to speak out of turn or put words in your mouth. That was a good post and points BTW that she tried to twist into a defense of her OP.

 

[ccrobinson]

When children are born into a family they must become first priority!

No. They're not. Children are not the first priority. There is a problem when children are the first priority. Here are the proper priorities when you're married with children.

#1. Your relationship with God.
#2. Your marriage.
#3. Your children.

If you want to say that your walk with God is an understood first priority since we're Christians here (presumably), that's fine.

If, however, you're putting your children ahead of your marriage, you need to fix your priorities.

 

[mcdirector]

No. They're not. Children are not the first priority. There is a problem when children are the first priority. Here are the proper priorities when you're married with children.

#1. Your relationship with God.
#2. Your marriage.
#3. Your children.

If you want to say that your walk with God is an understood first priority since we're Christians here (presumably), that's fine.

If, however, you're putting your children ahead of your marriage, you need to fix your priorities.

Amen to that!