She tries to be!I hate to tell you Dale, but neither you nor Milady are the head of your house. That cute little girl in you avatar is the head of your house. Just ask her and she'll be glad to clarify it for you!
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
She tries to be!I hate to tell you Dale, but neither you nor Milady are the head of your house. That cute little girl in you avatar is the head of your house. Just ask her and she'll be glad to clarify it for you!
Come back when you grow up. At 18 you have not the life experience to comment on marital relationships. Sorry. It is really sad for someone of your age to be so anti-female.christianyouth said:By saying this, you have just revealed two things, you are rebellious and you twist Scripture to suit your needs. I don't think Christianity is the right religion for you, given Paul's admonition for 'woman to be subject to their husbands' and 'women keep silent in the church' and even farther 'when a woman prophesies she should keep her head covered' ( a symbol of submission).
God has created the universe with order. He has made the family with order. The husband is the head, and for you to say that the wife does not need the husbands permission to get a job, just shows how culturally conditioned our Christianity has become.
Yes, OP, our country has been greatly hindered by the rise of femminist women. But as Dale said, it is because men stopped being men. So now, you have people like myself, being raised by a single mother. What does that do? It femminizes me. It is a viscious cycle..
Magnetic Poles said:Come back when you grow up. At 18 you have not the life experience to comment on marital relationships. Sorry.
As for Milady, I am sure Dale treats you fine. But you will never be considered his equal, given the comments he has made here.
MP said:I almost hope Hillary Clinton wins the election. Then maybe you who hate women so, will move to Saudi Arabia, where they treat women like you think they should be treated.
christianyouth said:By saying this, you have just revealed two things, you are rebellious and you twist Scripture to suit your needs. I don't think Christianity is the right religion for you, given Paul's admonition for 'woman to be subject to their husbands' and 'women keep silent in the church' and even farther 'when a woman prophesies she should keep her head covered' ( a symbol of submission).
God has created the universe with order. He has made the family with order. The husband is the head, and for you to say that the wife does not need the husbands permission to get a job, just shows how culturally conditioned our Christianity has become.
BaptistBeliever said:I really believe that the need to have women go to work is mostly a fault of our economy. Back in the 50's woman stayed at home with the children. Now almost nobody can afford to do that except ...
So you are in Ireland. Your wife wants to get a job in Seattle.I don't think a woman needs permission to get a job and I think it is wrong for the husband to say, "She'll get a job if a I let her."
Dale-c said:So you are in Ireland. Your wife wants to get a job in Seattle.
She can just move there and she doesn't need your permission.
is that what you are saying?
The statement above speaks volumes about one's attitude toward women. A female president is neither unbiblical nor a curse. A female is perfectly capable. If a woman's place is in the house it is also in the White House. The constitution lays out the requirements to be President, and gender is not one of them. Not only calling a female President a curse, but calling Senator Clinton "antichrist" is way over the top.Rufus_1611 said:I take issue too that you would "almost hope" the curse of a female president on this country, particularly one as antichrist as Hillary.
Magnetic Poles said:The statement above speaks volumes about one's attitude toward women. A female president is neither unbiblical nor a curse.
It's not about capable or incapable, it's about a person taking on a role that is outside of a Biblical model and about a people encouraging or following this action.A female is perfectly capable.
Certainly, it is...as first lady, not as commander in chief being a help meet to her husband.If a woman's place is in the house it is also in the White House.
Apparently,the founders lacked the vision to recognize how far our society would degrade as some things were self-evident.The constitution lays out the requirements to be President, and gender is not one of them.
There's a myriad of reasons why I believe Senator Clinton to be an antichrist. However to pick on one issue...In my world view, any individual that is so reprobate as to care not for the lives of children and endorses their murder, has the spirit of antichrist. I don't see how one can be pro-murder and be pro-Jesus Christ but perhaps you might give me your view on how these two can be reconciled.Not only calling a female President a curse, but calling Senator Clinton "antichrist" is way over the top.
Alrighty. Please give me a list of the books of the Bible that you believe apply to you and I'll try to quote from those.Magnetic Poles said:What total nonsense! Dragging out a verse re: enemies of ancient Israelites has no bearing on the USA.
Even historic Israel didn't always follow the God of the Bible...doesn't make it right.Even modern Israel had Golda Meir as PM.
Could you be more specific please? Besides being a feminist are you an abortionist as well are these the rest of the comments I'm hanging myself on?The rest of your comments are just more of you hanging yourself with your own words.
Rufus_1611 said:Alrighty. Please give me a list of the books of the Bible that you believe apply to you and I'll try to quote from those.
Could you be more specific please? Besides being a feminist are you an abortionist as well are these the rest of the comments I'm hanging myself on?
Dale-c said:So you are in Ireland. Your wife wants to get a job in Seattle.
She can just move there and she doesn't need your permission.
is that what you are saying?
Bob Alkire said:I know a lot of women stayed at home back in the 50's but my mother worked in the 50's, 60's and so on. About 30 to 40% of my friends mothers work as well. Why? My mother and father didn't want to live at a scale where my father's money could get us through. In other words they lived as so many do today, above their income, where the other families who didn't do as they did live under their income. Did we have a larger house, a new car, and so on, NO! From the time of about 9 or 10 I was to buy my school clothes and school stuff as most of the other children did back then. What did they do with the money, put it in the bank and in investments, so when they were old they could take care of themselves. It works well, for my mother she lived for 93 years, not as well for dad he lived for 61 years.
So this story about all the women staying at home a few years ago, isn't the way it was in the 40's and 50's in the world that I lived in.
How could we get back to a day when we could have the women stay at home? Well my wife, daughter and daughter in law all stayed at home or stayed at home until the children were raised. How? Manage what money that is made and live under your income. But to many today and yesterday didn't want to do it.
I will give BaptistBeliver credit, that most of the women in the Baptist churches where I was rased stayed at home ( I would say about 75 to 80% of them), and I would say of the Methodist around us about 50% of them stayed at home and of the Presbyterians (which we were at that time) about 10 to 20% stayed at home. As my dad use to say, the bigger the house and the newer the car the more wives worked.
A husband certainly has the duty to love his wife and do what is best for her but the ultimate decision on whether she works and where she works has to meet with his approval.I think the problem is the phrase "need permission" in the context of a discussion of women, which really has nothing to do with moving across the country. Clearly it's important for a husband and wife to take counsel in each other and jointly consider important decisions, but this duty is no more incumbent upon a wife than on her husband. If you phrased it more in terms of "acting as one flesh", I think you'd find a much greater consensus.
Dale-c said:A husband certainly has the duty to love his wife and do what is best for her but the ultimate decision on whether she works and where she works has to meet with his approval.
Got any scripture to go with yours?Magnetic Poles said:Would you like some mayo to go with that load of baloney?
So would you let your wife move across the country for a job and if so, would you go with her?Would you like some mayo to go with that load of baloney?
I do not "let" her do anything. She is a free human being.Dale-c said:So would you let your wife move across the country for a job and if so, would you go with her?
What if it was reversed? And is money all there is?What if you had a $95,000 per year job and she wanted to move away for a $20,000 per year job?
If that were her choice, then yes. I don't own her, she doesn't own me. We are together by mutual choice.By your logic, she could go and you would either have to go with her or let her go with out you.
Misapplied scripture to back up your chauvinism and view that females are second-class to males.ANd like Rufus said, we have scripture to back up what we are saying.
All you have is ad hominem.
Not at all. What I am saying is an teenager doesn't have the experience at intergender relationships to tell me what works in my marriage. I have been married 33 years to a strong, intelligent woman, and it is going fine, TYVM!By the way, it seems from your posts that you are a youth hater! ;-)