Let your women keep silence

[EdSutton]

I would have women dressing modestly and highlighting their feminine beauty rather than their sexuality...

So claims the religion of Islam, with it's 'slavery'.

I prefer not going beyond the Biblical statements, personally.

Ed

 

[johnp.]

7. Traditionalists with an authority provoking threat to power. Well, here’s a real one — and there is no reason to deny it.

Women in charge of websites! Whatever next Brandon? Men might have to make their coffee themselves.

Rufus.

Every man doesn't need a maid, he needs a Godly wife who is in submission to the Lord and men who find that find a good thing.

You mean always on call to you beck and call? Every man does need a maid, how is he going to eat before he gets one, it is forbidden to men to take on a female's role isn't it? GE 25:27 The boys grew up, and Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the open country, while Jacob was a quiet man, staying among the tents.
Jacob is a girlie I see. Bang goes your manly hunter argument. Why was Jacob cooking?

Not being able to vote would not make the woman 2nd class, it would demonstrate that she has a different role and her husband would be casting the vote for the family.

Goodness me you were serious! I must admit it would be nice to get them back to the sink but Pandora opened the kitchen door. I see you ignore the Queen of Sheba. Soloman was a wise man he didn't ignore her.

Women did not have a "right" to vote.

Mankind have no rights.

This was something that was forced about western nations because of screaming feminists.

They were not all screaming feminists but if they were I don't blame them. Wilberforce was also a screaming wasn't he? One needs to scream to get an hearing from some.

Sexual discrimination is illegal here is it not in the USA?

You have not provided, you have delegated your role.

We have acted against the norm but it is more of a norm now than it was but it was never completely alien to societies. It isn't against God or nature for a man to stay by the tents.
Our roles should be determined by the one that is able rather than the one that is not able. If I can do I do and if she does it better she is welcome to do, in fact, she has a duty of care and must take responsibilty if she is able.

God is not a woman.

God is not a woman. The Church is though, it is the Bride of Christ.

Thus, your heroine is either ignorant of scripture or is opposed to it and you are following after the footsteps of that opposition.

Makes a change from following a man a?

I would have women dressing modestly and highlighting their feminine beauty rather than their sexuality, I said nothing about sacks.

No but you said that a woman's form is revealed by trousers did you not? What must she wear so that her form is not seen but imagined? A sack? Why does the woman have to change for your sin instead of you asking God to take away lust? I keep asking but you do not answer. If a woman causes you to sin it is your sin not hers for your desires are wrong.

john.

 

[Rufus_1611]

So claims the religion of Islam, with it's 'slavery'.

I prefer not going beyond the Biblical statements, personally.

Ed

LUNATIC FRINGE:
If a person is making an imaginative or novel point, the approach here is to push the idea to a radical extreme generally agreed to be bad. The extreme can be either real or imagined. The hope here is that the other person will reflexively back off and retreat to a defensive position, thus short-circuiting the progression of the argument. (Source: http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html)

..........

 

[EdSutton]

I'll interrupt definitions of modesty and legalism to post this link: http://www.jesuscreed.org/?p=2340

For those brave enough to read "apostate" opinions.

OK, I read 'em. Plus all the comments, as well. And I take the same position one commenter did when he posted this -

For me, this is not an issue of fear, but an issue of faithfulness to God’s written revelation. ...

That is the real issue, the issue of faithfulness to God's written revelation, no matter what any current (or supposedly traditional) culture is attempting to impose. I have argued that any 'gift' given can be given to either a male or female, as the spiritual 'gifts' are in no way said or even implied to be gender specific, and cited that Junia (Rom. 16:7) was most probably female, and definitely was an apostle, generally assumed to be the 'highest' of all the spiritual gifts, although I disagree that any one gift is higher than another, as all the gifts are given at the sole discretion of the Holy Spirit.

And I have argued, just as consistently, that the 'offices' of the church, bishop/elder, deacon, and even the possible office of deaconness are gender specific by virtue of the qualifications and very definition.

I do not see any Scriptural conflict with my position. But I'm fairly sure some, from all points of view, see this view as "apostate", as well.

Ed

 

[Rufus_1611]

Women in charge of websites! Whatever next Brandon? Men might have to make their coffee themselves.

Rufus.



You mean always on call to you beck and call? Every man does need a maid, how is he going to eat before he gets one, it is forbidden to men to take on a female's role isn't it? GE 25:27 The boys grew up, and Esau became a skillful hunter, a man of the open country, while Jacob was a quiet man, staying among the tents.
Jacob is a girlie I see. Bang goes your manly hunter argument. Why was Jacob cooking?

What you call beck and call the Bible calls being a help meet.

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." - Genesis 2:18

The woman is not to be the head for she has a head and that head is the man...

"But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God." - 1 Corinthians 11:3​

Goodness me you were serious! I must admit it would be nice to get them back to the sink but Pandora opened the kitchen door. I see you ignore the Queen of Sheba. Soloman was a wise man he didn't ignore her.

I'm not advocating for ignoring women. I listen to my wife and I listen to Godly women. The feminists, I try to witness to.

Mankind have no rights.

I'm aware of the history of your nation not believing this. However, in America we fought a war establishing the following..

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,..." - Declaration of Independance​

They were not all screaming feminists but if they were I don't blame them. Wilberforce was also a screaming wasn't he? One needs to scream to get an hearing from some.

Sexual discrimination is illegal here is it not in the USA?

There are a great number of things in the USA which are legal and are opposed to the Word of God.

We have acted against the norm but it is more of a norm now than it was but it was never completely alien to societies. It isn't against God or nature for a man to stay by the tents.
Our roles should be determined by the one that is able rather than the one that is not able. If I can do I do and if she does it better she is welcome to do, in fact, she has a duty of care and must take responsibilty if she is able.

A Christian's role should be established by the Word of God.

God is not a woman. The Church is though, it is the Bride of Christ.

That's nice, but the quote was relative to your feminist heroine calling God a woman. A person who calls God a woman is not pro-God.

Makes a change from following a man a?

No but you said that a woman's form is revealed by trousers did you not? What must she wear so that her form is not seen but imagined? A sack? Why does the woman have to change for your sin instead of you asking God to take away lust? I keep asking but you do not answer. If a woman causes you to sin it is your sin not hers for your desires are wrong.

john.

The women followed the world's fashions to become seductresses of men. She put on the pants in the family and wore the clothes that pertained to men. Women should return to wearing what they wore for hundreds of years prior to this falling away. They wore long-flowing garments such as dresses and skirts. It's the perverted antichrist fashion designers that got 'em in to wearing the garments of harlots.

I am not answering your sexually related questions because the moderators have posted about 1/2 a dozens stickies that say we're not to talk about such things in the open forums.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

OK, I read 'em. Plus all the comments, as well. And I take the same position one commenter did when he posted this - That is the real issue, the issue of faithfulness to God's written revelation, no matter what any current (or supposedly traditional) culture is attempting to impose. I have argued that any 'gift' given can be given to either a male or female, as the spiritual 'gifts' are in no way said or even implied to be gender specific, and cited that Junia (Rom. 16:7) was most probably female, and definitely was an apostle, generally assumed to be the 'highest' of all the spiritual gifts, although I disagree that any one gift is higher than another, as all the gifts are given at the sole discretion of the Holy Spirit.

And I have argued, just as consistently, that the 'offices' of the church, bishop/elder, deacon, and even the possible office of deaconness are gender specific by virtue of the qualifications and very definition.

I do not see any Scriptural conflict with my position. But I'm fairly sure some, from all points of view, see this view as "apostate", as well.

Ed

Hello Ed, thanks for sharing this. We are very close in our positions. Romans 16:7 is a mess, so it's hard to make much of it for either side of this debate. Nonetheless, we agree on the offices. That's where I take my stand.

Unfortunately, I have little patience that this issue is one to wax biblical about while ignoring others that evangelicals don't care about that were important in the past or are still important to other branches of Christianity. It's hard to discern where culture is trumping revelation on this or other issues. One big example is the sermon on the mount and how context magically neuters the prescriptions found therein.

That's why dialogue is important as well as refraining from throwing around misnomers and playing psychoanalyst for why others have different positions armed with revisionist history. Unfortunately, both sides of this debate have participants that are guilty of this type of behavior. Hopefully, we can rise above such nonsense.

BJ

 

[webdog]

PHP 3:6 ...as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.

legalistic righteousness was salvation for the Jew was it not?

EX 19:5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."

Matt 5:48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect

john.

I don't see legalism or legalist anywhere in Php. 3:6.

Jews aren't saved different from Gentiles. We are all saved by grace through faith.

 

[EdSutton]

The women followed the world's fashions to become seductresses of men. She put on the pants in the family and wore the clothes that pertained to men. Women should return to wearing what they wore for hundreds of years prior to this falling away. They wore long-flowing garments such as dresses and skirts. It's the perverted antichrist fashion designers that got 'em in to wearing the garments of harlots.

Frankly, if you made such a comment as this last statement in my presence of my bride and me, as to her attire and ascribing her as "an harlot", based on the fact of whether or not she was wearing 'pants' or a 'dress', either me or you, one, would be flat on their back in a very short order and crying "Uncle!"! I would not in any way appreciate my wife being labeled an harlot, by any implication, and would in fact, get extremely angry! And I'm almost 59 years old and have had two major multiple surgeries in the last year and a half, including carotid, four bypasses, cancer, and hernia, and have not anywhere near recovered from them!

And if your outrageous and totally uncalled for comment is not a comment on human sexuality, or a comment on a "sexually related question", then I don't know what is!

And we are so totally done conversing on this subject, for I am not interested in seeing my blood pressure raised by any 'legalist'!!

Ed

 

[rbell]

The women followed the world's fashions to become seductresses of men. She put on the pants in the family and wore the clothes that pertained to men. Women should return to wearing what they wore for hundreds of years prior to this falling away. They wore long-flowing garments such as dresses and skirts. It's the perverted antichrist fashion designers that got 'em in to wearing the garments of harlots

Good job on insulting a bunch of wonderful, Godly women.

 

[webdog]

Women should return to wearing what they wore for hundreds of years prior to this falling away. They wore long-flowing garments such as dresses and skirts.

...maybe men should return to this too, as that was the original garment given to man to wear

 

[James_Newman]

Uh oh, Rufus, now you done went and hurt a bunch of feelings. Thats the unforgivable sin for people who let their feelings make the decisions. :laugh:

 

[Rufus_1611]

Frankly, if you made such a comment as this last statement in my presence of my bride and me, as to her attire and ascribing her as "an harlot", based on the fact of whether or not she was wearing 'pants' or a 'dress', either me or you, one, would be flat on their back in a very short order and crying "Uncle!"! I would not in any way appreciate my wife being labeled an harlot, by any implication, and would in fact, get extremely angry! And I'm almost 59 years old and have had two major multiple surgeries in the last year and a half, including carotid, four bypasses, cancer, and hernia, and have not anywhere near recovered from them!

And if your outrageous and totally uncalled for comment is not a comment on human sexuality, or a comment on a "sexually related question", then I don't know what is!

And we are so totally done conversing on this subject, for I am not interested in seeing my blood pressure raised by any 'legalist'!!

Ed

It is disappointing that you allow your emotions to encourage such violent tendencies to discuss these issues. I would not and did not describe anyone as being a harlot and I surely do not know you or your wife so perhaps you could enhance your calm a bit.

There are garments somewhere that meet the criteria of the attire of a harlot, women who wear these clothes are not necessarily harlots, they're just attired in their garments.

"And, behold, there met him a woman with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart." - Proverbs 7:10​

I've lived near some seedy areas and have driven by harlots. They wear mini-skirts, they wear tight pants, they wear skirts with slits in them however, I have never seen a harlot wear a long flowing skirt or dress, for this is not her uniform.

As to my outrageous comment, I have repeatedly stated that this is not a clothes thread but you and cooljohnny keep coming back to this issue. My apologies for replying to your comments.

 

[Rufus_1611]

Good job on insulting a bunch of wonderful, Godly women.

Wasn't intended to insult for the sake of insulting...it is what it is and if folks get offended...sorry. :tear:

 

[Rufus_1611]

Uh oh, Rufus, now you done went and hurt a bunch of feelings. Thats the unforgivable sin for people who let their feelings make the decisions. :laugh:

Well we left the "Age or Reason" long ago...now we're in the "Streisand Age".

"Feelings, nothing more than feelings,
Trying to forget my feelings of love.
Teardrops rolling down on my face,
Trying to forget my feelings of love.

Feelings, wo-o-o feelings," - Sung by Barbara Streisand lyrics by Morris Albert (I think)
​

 

[Rufus_1611]

Frankly, if you made such a comment as this last statement in my presence of my bride and me, as to her attire and ascribing her as "an harlot", based on the fact of whether or not she was wearing 'pants' or a 'dress', either me or you, one, would be flat on their back in a very short order and crying "Uncle!"!...

One more thing, if I was friends with a Christian couple and the bride was wearing offensive clothing, I would not comment to her about this issue. I would discreetly speak to her head and alert her head that what she was wearing offended a brother. If her head said that he'd address it, I'd say praise God and life would go on. If he politely countered that he disagrees and believes scripturally it's acceptable, I'd say I understand but my family will not be hanging out with his family. If he decided to hit me, I would take the hit and break fellowship.

 

[webdog]

Uh oh, Rufus, now you done went and hurt a bunch of feelings. Thats the unforgivable sin for people who let their feelings make the decisions. :laugh:

...or the common sense reasoning the Good Lord gave us!

 

[James_Newman]

Common sense says when someone offends your feelings, you slug em? It may be common sense, but it sure isn't reason.

 

[webdog]

Common sense says when someone offends your feelings, you slug em? It may be common sense, but it sure isn't reason.

Common sense (and Scripture) tells me what is legalism or not. I'm sorry it doesn't do the same for you.

How, as a man, does it hurt my feelings if women wear pants or not? Let's use your (and Rufus') reasoning and see if it's ok for men to wear the same, as there were no pants in biblical times.

 

[James_Newman]

Scripture tells me that I am going to be judged for how I apply God's word in my life (or don't) and that I should fear God rather than men. We have come to an age when the greatest offense is to say someone else is wrong. Personally I don't think most of the men on this forum have a choice in what their wives wear, and they probably just want to think that they are allowing their wives liberty in dress. If that offends you, knock me out.

 

[Amy.G]

I may be risking hell, but I'm going to break my silence. When did men start wearing pants instead of robes? Does anyone know? And why did they stop wearing robes?
I think men should wear robes.