-
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!
G
Glory-to-God
Guest
OK a few of you are fine with role reversals....so how about single women who decide to adopt kids or get artificialy inseminated to have children without a father ?
Not exactly what God had in mind...but hey it works....gays can get married too. I am sure they have their reasons for changing Gods ordained plan for mankind.
It's called liberalism
Not exactly what God had in mind...but hey it works....gays can get married too. I am sure they have their reasons for changing Gods ordained plan for mankind.
It's called liberalism
G
Glory-to-God
Guest
It's not a slippery slope it is redefining sex roles....and the roles God established for the family. To me what a few believe on women working and not taking care of the home and men being the providers for THEIR family is a slipper slope.
Women are to be workers at home
Men are to be the providers
I showed you scripture for this and a few want to twist scripture just like the liberals do. That is the way I see it.
Women are to be workers at home
Men are to be the providers
I showed you scripture for this and a few want to twist scripture just like the liberals do. That is the way I see it.
Yes, yes, I'm a Scripture-twisting lousy liberal. I understand.
You seem to say that if we allow women to work and men to stay at home, we will inevitably proceed to condoning gay marriage and single parenthood. You have no proof that this is true. In fact, you have evidence that it is not true from the fact that those of us who think that it isn't evil for men to stay at home while women work do not support gay marriage and single parenthood.
Now supposing you don't think that working women and homemaking dads leads to gay marriage, etc., and you're just asking without assuming a relationship between them, here's your answer: No. We do not support gay marriage and elective single-parenthood.
I hope that will be the end of that.
You seem to say that if we allow women to work and men to stay at home, we will inevitably proceed to condoning gay marriage and single parenthood. You have no proof that this is true. In fact, you have evidence that it is not true from the fact that those of us who think that it isn't evil for men to stay at home while women work do not support gay marriage and single parenthood.
Now supposing you don't think that working women and homemaking dads leads to gay marriage, etc., and you're just asking without assuming a relationship between them, here's your answer: No. We do not support gay marriage and elective single-parenthood.
I hope that will be the end of that.
No one has said that. What we're contending is what some as defined as "role". Most of these percieved "roles" are not based on scripture, but fallible human custom. So long as scripture is not violated, then custom be damned. If that means I'm one who favors role reversal as you put it, then I am so guilty, and proudly.
I generally don't have a problem witha single people adopting children. If the choice is one parent or no parent, then the kids should have one parent. The best choice, of course, is to get adopted by two parents. But orphaned children are so abundant that single persons choosing to take care of one should not be discouraged.
Against it. Kids will want to know who their mother and father are.
Aside from your "gay marriage" comment, the rest of your comments aren't about liberalism, they're about your own man-made perceptions. As Petrel put it, it's a slippery slope fallacy.It's called liberalism
Good point on adoption, Johnv. I was thinking more along the lines of people who wanted a biological child without getting married. I agree it's a completely different situation to give a home to a child who is living in a bad situation than to conceive a baby outside a marriage.
G
Glory-to-God
Guest
I never said that by believing what you believe on marriage roles that you would soon accept the others.
I said there is NO DIFFERENCE in what you believe and what they believe.....either way you and they are justifying and redefining Gods role for mankind.
Thats all
I said there is NO DIFFERENCE in what you believe and what they believe.....either way you and they are justifying and redefining Gods role for mankind.
Thats all
That's a lie, plain and simple. In fact, you have determined your man-made "roles" to be "God's roles", despite the fact, and I do mean fact, that scripture does not support you. You are, in effect, adding to scripture by doing so. I believe adding to scripture is one of the definitions of heresy. In the very least, it's false doctrine.
G
Glory-to-God
Guest
This is just a small piece from John Macathurs sermon on the matter......so I guess you know more than him? Please show me how what he said was wrong ? This is a truth based on a biblical principles. Lots of truths are based not on exact words found in the bible on the subject....but on principles. This is one of them.
God said women should be keepers at HOME....Titus 2:5 ....to be sensible, pure, Workers at home kind, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonered.
God made man to be the leaders and providers again....And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him an help fit for him (or better "a suitable helper."). And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a suitable helper.
Now, you notice in that, that from the very beginning, God designed someone to be in charge, and someone to help. Someone to be, as it were, "authority," and someone to be "submission." Someone to be the leader and someone to be the follower. Someone to take care of the provision and someone to be provided for. And from the very beginning the man had the role of the headship, and the woman had the role of the one for whom that headship was provided. The man was the one who protected, provided, preserved, and cared for the woman who was "a fitting," or "suitable helper" for him. "The LORD God (then desiring to give this to man, verse 21), caused a deep sleep (a divine anesthetic) to fall on Adam, and he slept: then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."
God said women should be keepers at HOME....Titus 2:5 ....to be sensible, pure, Workers at home kind, being subject to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be dishonered.
God made man to be the leaders and providers again....And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him an help fit for him (or better "a suitable helper."). And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found a suitable helper.
Now, you notice in that, that from the very beginning, God designed someone to be in charge, and someone to help. Someone to be, as it were, "authority," and someone to be "submission." Someone to be the leader and someone to be the follower. Someone to take care of the provision and someone to be provided for. And from the very beginning the man had the role of the headship, and the woman had the role of the one for whom that headship was provided. The man was the one who protected, provided, preserved, and cared for the woman who was "a fitting," or "suitable helper" for him. "The LORD God (then desiring to give this to man, verse 21), caused a deep sleep (a divine anesthetic) to fall on Adam, and he slept: then He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man."
G
Glory-to-God
Guest
And please explain what " precept misistries " said on the meaning of Titus 2:5 says.
WORKERS AT HOME: oikourgous: (Ge16:8,9; 18:9; Pr7:11; 31:10-31; 1 Ti5:13) "homemakers" (Amp), "to take care of their homes" (ICB), "diligent in home work" (Darby), "to take care of their homes" (NLT), "to be busy at home" (NIV), "to be good workers at home" (NCV), "working in their houses" (BBE), "good managers of the household" (NRSV), "industrious in their homes" (Weymouth), "fulfilling their duties at home" (NET)
"Workers at home" (oikourgós from oikos = home, household + érgo = to work) one devoted to home duties, preoccupied with domestic affairs, or as we might say today "a homemaker" and stands in contrast with the conduct of the younger Ephesian widows who were "idle" and going "around from house to house" (1Ti5:13). The KJV translates this section "keepers at home" because it uses another Greek noun (Textus Receptus has "oikourous") but most authorities (A T Robertson, Marvin Vincent, etc) and most modern translations (NASB, etc) favor the older manuscript use of oikourgós. Even if one favors the KJV, it should be emphasized that “Keepers at home” does not suggest that the woman's home is a prison where she must be kept! The idea is that she is “Caring for the home” and the wise husband allows his wife to manage the affairs of the household, for this is her ministry. It was estimated that in year 2000, up to 80% of women age 25-54 were involved in the the workplace. More women are entering or staying in the work force after having a baby. These numbers are interesting in light of a survey by Family Circle magazine which revealed that 68% of women surveyed would prefer to stay at home with their children if economically feasible.
WORKERS AT HOME: oikourgous: (Ge16:8,9; 18:9; Pr7:11; 31:10-31; 1 Ti5:13) "homemakers" (Amp), "to take care of their homes" (ICB), "diligent in home work" (Darby), "to take care of their homes" (NLT), "to be busy at home" (NIV), "to be good workers at home" (NCV), "working in their houses" (BBE), "good managers of the household" (NRSV), "industrious in their homes" (Weymouth), "fulfilling their duties at home" (NET)
"Workers at home" (oikourgós from oikos = home, household + érgo = to work) one devoted to home duties, preoccupied with domestic affairs, or as we might say today "a homemaker" and stands in contrast with the conduct of the younger Ephesian widows who were "idle" and going "around from house to house" (1Ti5:13). The KJV translates this section "keepers at home" because it uses another Greek noun (Textus Receptus has "oikourous") but most authorities (A T Robertson, Marvin Vincent, etc) and most modern translations (NASB, etc) favor the older manuscript use of oikourgós. Even if one favors the KJV, it should be emphasized that “Keepers at home” does not suggest that the woman's home is a prison where she must be kept! The idea is that she is “Caring for the home” and the wise husband allows his wife to manage the affairs of the household, for this is her ministry. It was estimated that in year 2000, up to 80% of women age 25-54 were involved in the the workplace. More women are entering or staying in the work force after having a baby. These numbers are interesting in light of a survey by Family Circle magazine which revealed that 68% of women surveyed would prefer to stay at home with their children if economically feasible.
M
Marco
Guest
I think glory-to-god just has some firm beliefs and I think she's lucky to be in a situation where she can live according to them. Her perspectives are not for all of us. We all can quote the Bible and make arguments. There are many denominations out there that think their way is the way to do things.
We're all sinners and I can't imagine God is any more happier with her than anyone else who loves Jesus Christ.
Glory-to-God is just saying there is a BEST way to live according to her understanding. I'm cool with that.
We're all sinners and I can't imagine God is any more happier with her than anyone else who loves Jesus Christ.
Glory-to-God is just saying there is a BEST way to live according to her understanding. I'm cool with that.
G
Glory-to-God
Guest
Well where did all the Baptist go ?
Tenor
I wasn't happy about leaving my child with daycare workers...the first one was a neighbor I grew up with. My son one day cried when I left him and didn't want me to leave him... it wasn't hard to figure out why.... she had a habit I noticed of leaving kids in high chairs and cribs instead of giving them attention ( I never saw this done to my son, but I am sure when I left she did ) anyway I soon realized after a few day cares no one took care of my son as well as I did.
I had to wait three years after much prayer for a godly man who was both emotionally and financilly secure. I did what I had to do at the time because of MY sin....but Gods BESTwas for my son to have both a mother and a father and for the father to provide and the wife to stay home with the kids managing the home. Titus 2:5.
Believing and standing on Biblical truths has nothing to do with NOT having compassion actually the opposite.....it is compassionate to say what is right and to help others do what is right. It is always right to obey God than man or self.
Donna where did I say anything about being " Slaves " you sound very judgmental for saying I am being judgmental...putting words in my mouth. You know nothing about me to say I do not understand....I totally understand. To many moms working for the wrong reasons. To many thinking they can change roles without consequences...having to do something out of nessecity and choosing too are two different things.
Tenor
Marco I had to work as a single mother...wasn't married when I had my first child....until many years later.
I wasn't happy about leaving my child with daycare workers...the first one was a neighbor I grew up with. My son one day cried when I left him and didn't want me to leave him... it wasn't hard to figure out why.... she had a habit I noticed of leaving kids in high chairs and cribs instead of giving them attention ( I never saw this done to my son, but I am sure when I left she did ) anyway I soon realized after a few day cares no one took care of my son as well as I did.
I had to wait three years after much prayer for a godly man who was both emotionally and financilly secure. I did what I had to do at the time because of MY sin....but Gods BESTwas for my son to have both a mother and a father and for the father to provide and the wife to stay home with the kids managing the home. Titus 2:5.
Believing and standing on Biblical truths has nothing to do with NOT having compassion actually the opposite.....it is compassionate to say what is right and to help others do what is right. It is always right to obey God than man or self.
Donna where did I say anything about being " Slaves " you sound very judgmental for saying I am being judgmental...putting words in my mouth. You know nothing about me to say I do not understand....I totally understand. To many moms working for the wrong reasons. To many thinking they can change roles without consequences...having to do something out of nessecity and choosing too are two different things.
Glory-to-God,
I commend your stance and your belief. I see roles as BASICALLY interchangeable (except for the pregnancy thing, of course). A man can be an excellent caregiver.
I support you in your decision. Let's agree to disagree on this. God's blessing as you meet with your local worshipping community this coming Sunday.
I commend your stance and your belief. I see roles as BASICALLY interchangeable (except for the pregnancy thing, of course). A man can be an excellent caregiver.
I support you in your decision. Let's agree to disagree on this. God's blessing as you meet with your local worshipping community this coming Sunday.
G
Glory-to-God
Guest
Thats fine tenor....I understand liberal concepts.....except one thing
Not just my belief
Not my decission
Not my understanding
Gods design
Gods plan
Gods will
GODS BEST
Not just my belief
Not my decission
Not my understanding
Gods design
Gods plan
Gods will
GODS BEST
based on the OP I was responding to the idea that BOTH parents would be leaving the house and working. That was part of her question. This has turned into a role reversal debate, though.
Let me say this, those of us who stay at home do not see ourselves as "just the lucky ones." Very often we are sacrificing ALOT materially in order to have the mom stay home. So to say we are just lucky can sound sort of annoying to us. We often work very hard to do what we can to save money, not make frivolous purchases, pinch pennies anywhere we can.
That being said, I still agree with Glory-to-God that it is primarily the ladies who are indicated in the Bible as being the ones responsible for the day to day care of the children in the household. This is MORE than merely "keeping up the house." We are more than slightly glorified housekeepers. This is not the same thing as "slavery to the house" any more than having an outside job would be "slavery to the office."
IF she can do this and have a job also, then her main emphasis should still be her household....not her job. There are situations where the husband can be home part of the time while mom works, and then mom is home while dad works. There are other situations where she works only during school hours.
Part of the OP also dealt with passing the kids off onto daycare....and as I said before daycare would still be abdicating her responsibility.
Single moms, as Glory-to-God addressed, are having to go through extra hardships unfortunately. They will almost always tell you they wish it were different. Of course we feel compassion for them. There are some things we go through because of our own sins though, and this is one of them.
Im so glad to have Glory-to-God around as a testament to the fact that we can do wrong, but God can and will still provide wonderfully for us and bring us to a place where we have a fulfilled Christian life in Him.
She now has a good GOdly husband and Im thankful for that for her.
Let me say this, those of us who stay at home do not see ourselves as "just the lucky ones." Very often we are sacrificing ALOT materially in order to have the mom stay home. So to say we are just lucky can sound sort of annoying to us. We often work very hard to do what we can to save money, not make frivolous purchases, pinch pennies anywhere we can.
That being said, I still agree with Glory-to-God that it is primarily the ladies who are indicated in the Bible as being the ones responsible for the day to day care of the children in the household. This is MORE than merely "keeping up the house." We are more than slightly glorified housekeepers. This is not the same thing as "slavery to the house" any more than having an outside job would be "slavery to the office."
IF she can do this and have a job also, then her main emphasis should still be her household....not her job. There are situations where the husband can be home part of the time while mom works, and then mom is home while dad works. There are other situations where she works only during school hours.
Part of the OP also dealt with passing the kids off onto daycare....and as I said before daycare would still be abdicating her responsibility.
Single moms, as Glory-to-God addressed, are having to go through extra hardships unfortunately. They will almost always tell you they wish it were different. Of course we feel compassion for them. There are some things we go through because of our own sins though, and this is one of them.
Im so glad to have Glory-to-God around as a testament to the fact that we can do wrong, but God can and will still provide wonderfully for us and bring us to a place where we have a fulfilled Christian life in Him.
She now has a good GOdly husband and Im thankful for that for her.