Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

Feminism - Let's just do it

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$1,038.00
Goal
$1,038.00
Right.

The Sexual Revolution created a whoredom which the Bible refers to again and again as the cause of great troubles.

And you think men weren't also willing participants in this sexual revolution? Did these hippie girls have to go around with guns, forcing men to have casual sex with them under threat of death?

I don't like the "free sex" attitudes we've had for the last half century, but you seem to be completely one-sided in your blame here.
 
Because they're widely considered the same movement at different times, for the advancement of women's rights.

Widely considered the same movemeny? By whom?

Is that what they taught you at school?

I can tell you they were totally different movements and 40 years or more apart. They even had different goals
 
Widely considered the same movemeny? By whom?

By a good majority of the various sources I've looked into when reading up on this topic. I also tend to agree, as the later waves were heavily inspired by the original.

Is that what they taught you at school?

NO. I learn about endocrine signalling molecules in vertebrates, population growth and regulation dynamics, and the effects of quantum statistics at high densities. I do not take any sort of anthropology or sociology style courses. Not one.

Everything I know about this subject I've learned from accessing a variety of sources of my own volition.

I can tell you they were totally different movements and 40 years or more apart. They even had different goals

Most of their goals have been met, which is why an increasing number of facetious goals are being promoted. This does not, however, change the fact that many important social changes were made.
 
Because they're widely considered the same movement at different times, for the advancement of women's rights.

Yes, that's right. Here's a reference to further clarify:

Feminism is a collection of movements aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women.<SUP id=cite_ref-0 class=reference jQuery17207857909954923894="98">[1]</SUP><SUP id=cite_ref-1 class=reference jQuery17207857909954923894="99">[2]</SUP> In addition, feminism seeks to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment. A feminist is "an advocate or supporter of the rights and equality of women."<SUP id=cite_ref-2 class=reference jQuery17207857909954923894="100">[3] (wikipedia)</SUP>

Fighting for the right to vote was an example of one of many feminist movements. History is full of such movements, dating back thousands of years. The notion that feminism began in the 1960s in the United States is an extremely uninformed opinion.
 
By a good majority of the various sources I've looked into when reading up on this topic. I also tend to agree, as the later waves were heavily inspired by the original.



NO. I learn about endocrine signalling molecules in vertebrates, population growth and regulation dynamics, and the effects of quantum statistics at high densities. I do not take any sort of anthropology or sociology style courses. Not one.

Everything I know about this subject I've learned from accessing a variety of sources of my own volition.



Most of their goals have been met, which is why an increasing number of facetious goals are being promoted. This does not, however, change the fact that many important social changes were made.

I find it odd that you are being criticized for "going to school." Without being open to education, we are much more vulnerable to uninformed opinion and prejudice.
 
Interesting. And how do you propose to remove women from the workforce to set this plan in motion?


Voluntarily... through confession.

The plan is to appeal to their common sense, and get them to face Reality.
The plan is to have women educate the girls of the next generation about the results of the feminist revolution.
The women will confess that it really screwed them up so bad that they lost the kids they wanted the men to help them raise in a happy family.

They lost the virtue to be a virgin before marriage.
They lost the glory of being legitimately pregnant before they were 20.
They lost the husbands that had been fathers before the revolution of 1960.
They lost the real job of mother which had evolved as a maternal instinct over thousands of years.
They lost the security of a husbandly wage earner bringing home the bacon.
They lost the whole concept of Family.
They lost their kids to crime and other sociopathic problems.

They got a real stern bossy patriarch at work who held a job over their head and detailed their every move for 40 hours a day.
Or, they got Welfare and criminal kids.




Children and Single Moms: Is that not child abuse too? ffice:office" /><o:tongue></o>

Whether it is caused by violence or not, children living with single momsdon't do well in our society.
It used to be the exception. Now it is becoming the rule and progressively worse. <o:tongue></o>
 
Someone asked me earlier in the thread if I've read a pamphlet on "Bible verses that support equality" or something to that effect.

Actually, no, I haven't read any pamphlets. As a Bible College Professor and Department Head, however, I did spend a number of years researching this topic. My research took me from the oldest Greek manuscripts of the New Testament to some excellent books written by colleagues that I greatly respect. I summarized my findings in a book of my own called "Let My People Go: A Call to End the Oppression of Women in the Church."

My research convinced me that many Christians today are profoundly unaware of changes that took place in the church during the third and fourth centuries. I'd like to reference some of these changes now.

Specifically, I'd like to highlight an incredible difference that can be found in the message of the Bible itself, versus the message of some third century Roman Bishops that helped shape the church's patriarchal traditions.

In the Bible we read that husbands "ruling over" wives is a curse. It is not part of God's design for humanity. It is portrayed as the outcome of sin (Genesis chapter 3). In Galatians chapter 3, the Bible tells us that Jesus died to redeem us from this curse: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law <sup class="crossreference" value='(V)'></sup>by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: “Cursed is everyone who is hung on a pole" (Galatians 3:13, NIV).

The biblical author then goes on to say that as a result of Christ's redemption, "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AU)'></sup>nor is there male and female, <sup class="crossreference" value='(AV)'></sup>for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28, NIV).

This message came at a time when there were sharp divisions between Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, men and women. This was a radical message, a message of hope for the oppressed. In Christ, these inequalities are ended, we are "all one." In Christ, we are all called to love and serve one another, just as Jesus loved us.

In the third century, the Christian church officially became an institution of the Roman Empire. This was an extremely patriarchal culture. Women were viewed as wild sources of social upheaval that required male supervision from birth until death. Wives were legally beaten to death by Roman husbands if they were not appropriately submissive. Did this merger between Christianity and Roman culture have an impact on the church's view of women?

It's easy to answer this question by sharing quotes from two of Rome's most prominent Bishops of this time period:

St. Augustine:
It is the natural order among people that women serve their husbands and children their parents, because the justice of this lies in (the principle that) the lesser serves the greater…This is the natural justice that the weaker brain serve the stronger. This therefore is the evident justice in the relationships between slaves and their masters, that they who excel in reason, excel in power. (Augustine, as cited in Wijngaards, 2010, emphasis mine) Please not that Augustine is using the same rationale to justify male domination of women, and slavery.

St. John Chrysostom (c347-407), Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Constantinople, said that women are, in general, "weak and flighty." He neatly put together the twin theological ideas of anti-women and anti-sex in this passage: "It does not profit a man to marry. For what is a woman but an enemy of friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a domestic danger, delectable mischief, a fault in nature, painted with beautiful colors?" [11] To help believers overcome the temptation of women, Chrysostom devised the following description: "The whole of her body is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum and the fluid of digested food ... If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and the cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is only a whitened sepulchre." [12] A clearer example of outright woman-hate would be difficult to find.

Another notable scholar from this time period was St. Jerome. Please note that he was one of the first Bible translators.

St. Jerome (c342-420), the well known Biblical scholar and translator of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate) have a simple view of women. To him "woman is the root of all evil." [8] Like all the early Christian theologians, Jerome glorified virginity and looked down on marriage. He reasoning, was also rooted in Genesis: "Eve in paradise was a virgin ... understand that virginity is natural and that marriage comes after the Fall." [9] The marital act to Jerome cannot be good because it only acts as a relief valve: "Thus it must be bad to touch a woman. If indulgences is nonetheless granted to the marital act, this is only to avoid something worse. But what value can be recognized in a good that is allowed only with a view of preventing something worse?" Jerome wrote that the only good thing about marriage is that "it produces virgins." [10] http://www.rejectionofpascalswager.net/womenfathers.html

Augustine also believed that "flesh" in the Bible refers to women, and "spirit" refers to men. Just as the spirit must rule the flesh, he taught, men must rule women. (Trombley, 2003). Jerome said that women are saved from sin by bearing children, literally.

These views of women from this point forward became the official doctrine of the church. At the turn of the millennium they became known as "canon law." Resistance to this law was quite literally punishable by death--burning at the stake to be precise.

Luther, a protestant reformer, was also an Augustinian monk. He had similar views of women. Calvin, another protestant reformer, based much of his theology--including his views of women--on the writings of St. Augustine. Thus, Augustine's misogyny spread into the Protestant churches, and became "official church doctrine" there as well.

Those who say things like, "the Bible teaches that women are inferior" (particularly those that look down on "education") quite literally have absolutely no idea what legacy they are passing on. They are not passing on the gospel of freedom from the curse that the Bible teaches. They are passing an oppressive prejudice that has its origin in ancient Rome.

I can't help remembering how Jesus confronted the religious leaders of his day for nullifying the word of God by giving priority to the traditions of man. I think some church leaders do the same when they absorb and teach Augustine's twisted worldview and nullify the redemption we have in Christ.


This sounds so terrible and such a miscarriage of the real Gospel.

What we must read between the lines of the writings of these early Christians is their all out attack against the harlotry and rampant trade in sexual favors directly attributable to the unconscionable lust of the men they were advising.

The men you quote were those who had lived through the great tribulation of 303Ad-313AD, just before Constantine mandated his Edict of Toleration.
These were the sons if not the actual men who faced martyrdom in the name of these views they held so strongly.


These were the men who lived at the time of the Nicaea edict that first legalized Christianity.

These were the 144,000 men who had witnessed the full impact and consequences of a Roman hedonism and sexual promiscuity which took its toll on that crumbling society.
These were the 144,000 virgins who restrained themselves from lust, who were placing their lives on the line in the name of Christian Prudence.


It was from these first valerous acts, in a harsh patriarchy similar in kind to Islam today, that 1000 years of Christian prudence ensued, and the attention of the whole Western World turned away from it obsession with sexual gratification and the abuses that come with it.

We saw the nude in Arts disappear from the society, the abortions and illegitimacy end. No more orgies and wild parties. No more gentile abortions even in the highest places of their society.

We saw marriages that lasted until heaven, and divorce virtually disappear.
We saw the difference between those children raised then, and the criminal element and child abuse in this age. as single mothers have grown to half the population of our families.

What we must remember when we read these seeming harsh words of disdain for a particular kind of woman's behavior, is that these words were directed at restraining men long accustomed to exercising their lust.
These words were meant for the men, those who had long been without responsible forethought in regard to the social consequences.

These were words used to counter the male images of loose women and the glories of wide open lustful satiation.
These were words to men who had great pride in the bad behavior and the counting of the notches on the scores with promiscuous women.
 
Why do I suddenly feel like I've been transported back to the 1600's??


Probably because that was just about the moment in history when the "dragon" of sexual promiscuity, (which is th Big Satan), had escaped from the pit where he had been chained for 1000 years?
The seven headed beast of Empire was revived from its almost mortal wound of a millennium of Christian Prudence.

This beast's new life is seen in the historic Renaissance, a re-birth of the culture of ancient Rome and Greece in the midst of a universal Christian prudence that was being shed.








1Tim. 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the (Renaissance of the) latter times, (after the end of the thousand year reign of Universal Christianity) some (men)shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits (demanding sexual license) and (the liberalization of marriage vows to include no-fault divorce, gay marriages, adolescent sexual freedom, multiple sex partners, open marriages, the ridiculing of virginity, condoning multiple pre-marital sex partners, inclusion of open marriages, and such) doctrines (of supposed sacred oaths) of (exploitive) devils (who are beneficiaries of such behaviors, i.e.; lawyers, Feminists traders in sexual favors, wives' second time around, non-support welfare fathers, irresponsible adolescents, politicians serving these constituients, etc...);


1Tim. 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy (of even their own statistical facts concerning illegitimacy/Abortion and sociological studies exposing the child abuse of broken families), having their conscience seared (shut) with a hot iron (of self interest in Feminism);

1Tim. 4:3 Forbidding (young people) to marry (until an average age of 26 years), and commanding (the folly of abstinence, in order) to abstain from meats (of their God-given hormonal drives) which God hath created (in us) to be received (and exercised close to the days of puberty) with thanksgiving (for those sexual acts which nature intended) of them which believe (that God granted our satisfaction in the sexual drives he, himself, created) and know the truth, (that society manipulates the youth concerning early adolescent marriages in order to channel their behavior onto paths more useful for the economy of this man-made world).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This sounds so terrible and such a miscarriage of the real Gospel.

What we must read between the lines of the writings of these early Christians is their all out attack against the harlotry and rampant trade in sexual favors directly attributable to the unconscionable lust of the men they were advising.

The men you quote were those who had lived through the great tribulation of 303Ad-313AD, just before Constantine mandated his Edict of Toleration.
These were the sons if not the actual men who faced martyrdom in the name of these views they held so strongly.


These were the men who lived at the time of the Nicaea edict that first legalized Christianity.

These were the 144,000 men who had witnessed the full impact and consequences of a Roman hedonism and sexual promiscuity which took its toll on that crumbling society.
These were the 144,000 virgins who restrained themselves from lust, who were placing their lives on the line in the name of Christian Prudence.


It was from these first valerous acts, in a harsh patriarchy similar in kind to Islam today, that 1000 years of Christian prudence ensued, and the attention of the whole Western World turned away from it obsession with sexual gratification and the abuses that come with it.

We saw the nude in Arts disappear from the society, the abortions and illegitimacy end. No more orgies and wild parties. No more gentile abortions even in the highest places of their society.

We saw marriages that lasted until heaven, and divorce virtually disappear.
We saw the difference between those children raised then, and the criminal element and child abuse in this age. as single mothers have grown to half the population of our families.

What we must remember when we read these seeming harsh words of disdain for a particular kind of woman's behavior, is that these words were directed at restraining men long accustomed to exercising their lust.
These words were meant for the men, those who had long been without responsible forethought in regard to the social consequences.

These were words used to counter the male images of loose women and the glories of wide open lustful satiation.
These were words to men who had great pride in the bad behavior and the counting of the notches on the scores with promiscuous women.

The notion that Jesus died to free us from the curse is straight from Galatians chapter 3. The idea that the curse involves men ruling over women is straight from Genesis chapter 3. The good news (i.e. "gospel") that there is no male or female in Christ, that we are all one is also straight from Galatians chapter 3, and it is the outcome of Jesus taking "the curse" upon himself.

What part of this do you consider a "miscarriage of the real gospel?" Are you aware of a better gospel that doesn't come from the pages of the New Testament?

Also, are you suggesting that Augustine, Jerome and Chrysostom were "valourous" for their incredible oppression of women? When you compare their valourous acts and "harsh patriarchy" to Islam, are you thinking that's a good thing?

When you say Jerome's words were written for men, do you think it somehow helps them to see women as "the root of all evil?" How do you think this makes women feel?

Isn't believing in Jesus and being filled with the Holy Spirit the solution to sin (including sexual immorality) offered in the gospel? Do you really think sin is overcome by way of patriarchy?

Also, we don't have to "read between the lines" to understand Augustine's motivations. He wrote them all down for us in his "Confessions." You can probably find them at your local library. He believed that sexual feelings were evil, even in marriage. He thought that the solution to having sexual feelings was to control women--to have them veiled and kept apart from men. He felt tremendously ashamed of his promiscuous past, but instead of resolving this in the light of God's grace, he projected blame for it onto women.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Probably because that was just about the moment in history when the "dragon" of sexual promiscuity, (which is th Big Satan), had escaped from the pit where he had been chained for 1000 years?
The seven headed beast of Empire was revived from its almost mortal wound of a millennium of Christian Prudence.

This beast's new life is seen in the historic Renaissance, a re-birth of the culture of ancient Rome and Greece in the midst of a universal Christian prudence that was being shed.








1Tim. 4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the (Renaissance of the) latter times, (after the end of the thousand year reign of Universal Christianity) some (men)shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits (demanding sexual license) and (the liberalization of marriage vows to include no-fault divorce, gay marriages, adolescent sexual freedom, multiple sex partners, open marriages, the ridiculing of virginity, condoning multiple pre-marital sex partners, inclusion of open marriages, and such) doctrines (of supposed sacred oaths) of (exploitive) devils (who are beneficiaries of such behaviors, i.e.; lawyers, Feminists traders in sexual favors, wives' second time around, non-support welfare fathers, irresponsible adolescents, politicians serving these constituients, etc...);


1Tim. 4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy (of even their own statistical facts concerning illegitimacy/Abortion and sociological studies exposing the child abuse of broken families), having their conscience seared (shut) with a hot iron (of self interest in Feminism);

1Tim. 4:3 Forbidding (young people) to marry (until an average age of 26 years), and commanding (the folly of abstinence, in order) to abstain from meats (of their God-given hormonal drives) which God hath created (in us) to be received (and exercised close to the days of puberty) with thanksgiving (for those sexual acts which nature intended) of them which believe (that God granted our satisfaction in the sexual drives he, himself, created) and know the truth, (that society manipulates the youth concerning early adolescent marriages in order to channel their behavior onto paths more useful for the economy of this man-made world).


You do realize that all these words you're adding to the Bible aren't really there don't you?
 
I respect women who make respectable choices and have good attitudes. a good deal of modern femanists, even in my church, act as if men are evil. They are reacting to centuries of disrepect towards women with their own hate towards men and that is not right. Just because alot of men disrespect women doesnt mean that all men do.

God demands more from believers. I see no reason for women in the church to be snooty and defensive to true, Godly, respectful men.

and men have no reason to be jerks to women. Sin sucks huh?

Sent from my DROID RAZR
 
Back
Top