Women in the workplace.

[sag38]

Keep them women bare foot, pregnant, and in the kitchen where they belong. This bunk isn't from the Bible. It's from the book Fundamentalism for Dummies. The last time I checked I was allowed to argue with the holy Aaron (in this case, rightly so) but not with God's Holy Word where one cannot find scripture to support Cutter's rant.

 

[Gina B]

Considering women leaving their God ordained duties of keepers at home and entering the workplace creating loss of jobs for breadwinners (men), children being raised with gender identification problems, divorce and adultery, etc... has it really been worth it as a whole for our society?

Yes, yes it has been.

You see, when I went out and got a job, my whole point was to take a job from a man.
I can only hope that while I am at work earning bacon instead of bread, my husband commits adultery and lesbians who think they are straight males take over the housework. I'll pay them from the alimony I get during the divorce.

Just one question. However did you figure out our plan? We've been teaming up in quiet groups of ten thousand and secretly plotting this for decades. Are you a superspy or something?

 

[gb93433]

Does a Proverbs 31 woman take a job from a man too.

Prov. 31:16-17, "She considers a field and buys it; From her earnings she plants a vineyard. She girds herself with strength And makes her arms strong."

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Troll alert. Don't feed the troll.

 

[Peggy]

the OP is just trying to provoke us to wrath

 

[billreber]

Of course, you all know that all sin came from the first woman, Eve! Just check out Genesis 3:6! Oh, wait! It says her husband was "with her" (KJV and NIV)!!!

Ladies, I stand firm with you that Cutter is WAYYY off base with this one!

Bill :godisgood:

 

[Aaron]

hard to do when there aren't any that say women can not work out of the home . . .

What does it mean to guide the house or be a keeper at home?

. . . or that all societys problems can be blamed on women.

No one asserted such a thing.

on the other hand the bible does tell us that women were mor elowly then, and seems to me solomon collected women, and he wouldn't be the only one. a little history on this goes a long way as to how wemon have always been treated and viewed.

If you want to talk about that far back, I agree, but I think MK had up to the 19th Amendment in mind. To assert that women were regarded simply as chattle property even in colonial America is a preposterous regurgitation of feminist propaganda.

 

[donnA]

No one asserted such a thing.

read the op.

What does it mean to guide the house or be a keeper at home?

to take care of, but be imprisoned to never leave, to scour to floors and scrub the toilets day and night to serve men. thers just so much to do in the house, then you got nothing.

To assert that women were regarded simply as chattle property even in colonial America is a preposterous regurgitation of feminist propaganda.
__________________

no, after reading your postings on this for years this is exactly how you view women.

Keep them women bare foot, pregnant, and in the kitchen where they belong.

this is how aaron views women, and it's nto all of what we've seen him post, it gets worse.

 

[menageriekeeper]

If you want to talk about that far back, I agree, but I think MK had up to the 19th Amendment in mind. To assert that women were regarded simply as chattle property even in colonial America is a preposterous regurgitation of feminist propaganda.

Actually Aaron, I didn't have the 19th ammendment in mind. LOL, I've been watching way to much of HBO's Tudor series and had that time period in mind for the first comment and yes, I had Biblical times in mind for the second. Nothing in scripture encourages such a position even though it persisted for centuries and not just in Judeo/Christian societies, but in most societies around the world.

People might want to look back and say "oh, in the good ol' days women stayed home and kept the house and the kids. yada, yada", but they don't want to talk about what happened if a woman lost her husband or if HE decided he didn't want to be married. They don't want to talk about the prevailing theory of the time that woman was more prone to sinfulness than man and thus needed "protection" from that so-called fault all the while ignoring the fact that it was ADAM who sinned knowingly while Eve was merely deceived.

 

[Cutter]

it was ADAM who sinned knowingly while Eve was merely deceived.

Hopefully this is not a slander against Adam. The only way that Adam could save his wife was to stoop and become acquainted with her sin nature much like Christ did for us. Christ did not sin, mind you, but He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

 

[Tom Bryant]

The only way that Adam could save his wife was to stoop and become acquainted with her sin nature much like Christ did for us.

Cutter,
are you saying that Adam sinned in order to save his wife?

 

[Peggy]

Fortunately this isn't the 19th century when men were men and women knew their place.

Thank God we have the FREEDOM to get a job to support ourselves and help support our families.

There will always be ignorant people who like to blame women for all their problems and the problems of society. I think that is because they are insecure in their manhood.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Hopefully this is not a slander against Adam. The only way that Adam could save his wife was to stoop and become acquainted with her sin nature much like Christ did for us. Christ did not sin, mind you, but He came in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.

:laugh: Okay. So only ADAM could save his wife and this was his best choice???? Since when was it ADAM's responsibility to save his wife? Adam would have been better suited to take the issue straight to God that evening and the let his Creator fix the problem! It has NEVER been man's responsibility to save himself, much less someone else.

Have you been listening to folks outside our denom? Cause that sounds like something a Catholic might say.

 

[Cutter]

Cutter,
are you saying that Adam sinned in order to save his wife?

Yes...More to come. :thumbs:

 

[Tom Bryant]

Yes...More to come. :thumbs:

don't bother.... since you're this wrong about Adam and his sin, you're wrong about so much more!

 

[Cutter]

don't bother.... since you're this wrong about Adam and his sin, you're wrong about so much more!

M.R. DeHaan points out in his book, "Portraits of Christ in Genesis," the following and I very much agree with it.

"Adam also must have known that for Eve to be redeemed, it must be by a human redeemer, later referred to as the seed of the woman, Eve needed a Savior, a Redeemer, and this Savior must be her seed...But how could Eve bring forth a seed without a husband? Adam could not be the father of her seed as long as he was separated from her by her sin... In Adam's perfect state he could have no communion with fallen Eve. (II Cor.:14-16)...
Since Adam could not lift Eve to his level without the Redeemer seed, he must lower himself to her level, assume her guilt, become partaker of her sin and condemnation, and then, the separation between them being removed, he could become the father of her seed. And so Adam deliberately, willingly, and with full knowledge of the consequence, took the fruit from Eve's hand and did eat...(I Tim. 2:14) Adam was not deceived. He knew it meant his death, but it was the only way to save his beloved bride. And this salvation would be by the bearing of a child...And so Paul contiues, (I Tim.2:15) Notwithstanding she shall be saved by childbearing...In all of this, Adam was a type of Christ. (Romans 5:14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.... Adam's transgression was different from any other. We sin because we are sinners. He became a sinner because he deliberately chose to share in the sin of Eve...Jesus also loved the church, His bride, and gave Himself for it. His bride too had been deceived by the enemy and alienated from God...He identified Himself with our sin..Jesus took our sin upon Himself. It meant His death, but his love knew no bounds..."

 

[Cutter]

M.R. DeHaan points out in his book, "Portraits of Christ in Genesis," the following and I very much agree with it.

"Adam also must have known that for Eve to be redeemed, it must be by a human redeemer, later referred to as the seed of the woman, Eve needed a Savior, a Redeemer, and this Savior must be her seed...But how could Eve bring forth a seed without a husband? Adam could not be the father of her seed as long as he was separated from her by her sin... In Adam's perfect state he could have no communion with fallen Eve. (II Cor.:14-16)...
Since Adam could not lift Eve to his level without the Redeemer seed, he must lower himself to her level, assume her guilt, become partaker of her sin and condemnation, and then, the separation between them being removed, he could become the father of her seed. And so Adam deliberately, willingly, and with full knowledge of the consequence, took the fruit from Eve's hand and did eat...(I Tim. 2:14) Adam was not deceived. He knew it meant his death, but it was the only way to save his beloved bride. And this salvation would be by the bearing of a child...And so Paul continues, (I Tim.2:15) Notwithstanding she shall be saved by childbearing...In all of this, Adam was a type of Christ. (Romans 5:14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.... Adam's transgression was different from any other. We sin because we are sinners. He became a sinner because he deliberately chose to share in the sin of Eve...Jesus also loved the church, His bride, and gave Himself for it. His bride too had been deceived by the enemy and alienated from God...He identified Himself with our sin..Jesus took our sin upon Himself. It meant His death, but his love knew no bounds..."

O' waht a Savior!

 

[Cutter]

M.R. DeHaan points out in his book, "Portraits of Christ in Genesis," the following and I very much agree with it.

"Adam also must have known that for Eve to be redeemed, it must be by a human redeemer, later referred to as the seed of the woman, Eve needed a Savior, a Redeemer, and this Savior must be her seed...But how could Eve bring forth a seed without a husband? Adam could not be the father of her seed as long as he was separated from her by her sin... In Adam's perfect state he could have no communion with fallen Eve. (II Corinthians.:14-16)...
Since Adam could not lift Eve to his level without the Redeemer seed, he must lower himself to her level, assume her guilt, become partaker of her sin and condemnation, and then, the separation between them being removed, he could become the father of her seed. And so Adam deliberately, willingly, and with full knowledge of the consequence, took the fruit from Eve's hand and did eat...(I Timothy. 2:14) Adam was not deceived. He knew it meant his death, but it was the only way to save his beloved bride. And this salvation would be by the bearing of a child...And so Paul continues, (I Timothy.2:15) Notwithstanding she shall be saved by childbearing...In all of this, Adam was a type of Christ. (Romans 5:14) Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come.... Adam's transgression was different from any other. We sin because we are sinners. He became a sinner because he deliberately chose to share in the sin of Eve...Jesus also loved the church, His bride, and gave Himself for it. His bride too had been deceived by the enemy and alienated from God...He identified Himself with our sin..Jesus took our sin upon Himself. It meant His death, but his love knew no bounds..."

O' what a Savior!

 

[Cutter]

I do not know why or how this got posted three times. Maybe an Administrator will delete the last two. Thanks.

 

[Revmitchell]

Fortunately this isn't the 19th century when men were men and women knew their place.

Thank God we have the FREEDOM to get a job to support ourselves and help support our families.

There will always be ignorant people who like to blame women for all their problems and the problems of society. I think that is because they are insecure in their manhood.

I do not think anything was intended to single women who work out but it was intended to include it. Women working is often a result of decisions made by both the husband and the wife. Usually a result of wanting a higher standard of living rather than out of actual need.

But let's face it in today's economy the wife often needs to work to some degree just to be able to afford some basics. There is a concern however for homes where mom does not really want to be mom and despises anything to do with the home and wants to simply have a career. God intended the woman to care for the home and the man to provide. The mothers primary concern should be the home.