I don't know about the UK, but the US is slightly over 50% female (especially at my age), so femininity is prevalent here, too.
If it's not in the UK, I feel sorry for you, 'cause women are wonderful.
Femininity in men...
Upvote
0
I don't know about the UK, but the US is slightly over 50% female (especially at my age), so femininity is prevalent here, too.
If it's not in the UK, I feel sorry for you, 'cause women are wonderful.
From talks I have listened to from Jordan Peterson, this may not be true about Sweden. Certainly the leftist politics of the country for generations now have been attempting to engineer total equality between the sexes, but as far as men go, and as far as women of Sweden go to, they have maintained or reverted back to behaviors typically thought of as masculine for males and feminine for females to a higher degree than many other countries where that kind of social engineering is less prevalent.Not surprising from a country where femininity is prevalent.
.God kills everybody.
discipler7 said:I don't think it was God who actually killed Jesus Christ on the Cross.
.Vicomte13 said:I know you don't.
We do need to know the mind of Jesus,
Is not your statement below condescending towards our Lord and saviour....
"don't worry guys, I'm only doing it so they will repent"
This is preposterous speech, that implies a distrust in the Lord, for the purpose of lowering confidence in his almighty works and almighty ways. Your remarks are condescending and should be retracted.
Ha ha ha! Really!
You must be joking!
Which god and what gospel are you preaching from?
If you turn your back on Jesus, it maybe be at your own peril and your last. Think about it for a moment.
Generally, maybe
But in this case, all we can know is that Scripture says that Jesus ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners. We cannot know, 2000 years after the event, WHY he did it. Scripture does not say that he only associated with the in order to convert them. That is something you have read into the text, either because you want it to be there, or think that that's what he should have done.
Jesus ate and drank with tax collectors and sinners - therefore, he associated with them.
Jesus came into this world, walked, lived among and died for sinners - therefore he associates with us. And as he does not wash his hands of us when we sin as Christians; he continues to associate with us.
No of course not. I said that was a statement that Jesus NEVER made. I'm saying that Jesus did not give his reasons for eating with tax collectors and sinners.
My question was "what if the woman had committed adultery again after she's been forgiven? Would Jesus not have forgiven her again?"
I'm reading the Gospel where Jesus teaches us to treat others as we would like to be treated, and where he sided with, stood up for and helped the poor, weak and disadvantaged. I'm reading about the God who is on the side of the poor and who criticised others for taking advantage of them.
Have you read Matthew 25 recently? Jesus said "what you did not do for one of these, you did not do for me".
James said that saying to a poor person "keep warm" and doing nothing to help them, is no good; faith is shown by our actions.
You seem to be saying that social action and helping others is not acceptable unless you also lead them to repentance. That's not correct.
Going into a pub, for example, to talk to and maybe befriend people, is not "turning my back on Jesus."
Like I said, you don't understand what I am saying.
You stated previously......
"Scripture does not say that he only associated with the sinners in order to convert them. That is something you have read into the text, either because you want it to be there"
His goal was to reconcile them to the Father, through repentance. You don't think that he wanted to make friends and pass time, do you?
Context, the poor are defined as the obedient poor, not the disobedient poor
It is your time with an unsaved sinner, outside of Christ's Great Commission prerogative. It may come to work against you, if you hang around with the unsaved sinners. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen.
I believe I have a clear picture of which direction you are aiming for.
So your view is that women aren't created in the image of God; probably, in fact, in the image of man (God help us!). And that we were created to be some kind of helper to man. Why? couldn't he cope with the work on his own, or did he just want to be able to delegate?
Scripture doesn't support that view. The word for helper is, I have been told, the same word that Jesus uses when he describes the Holy Spirit as a helper. Genesis also says that women was created because it was not good for man to be ALONE - i.e she was his companion/partner.
Wait. Is God not the Trinity, and is the Trinity not God?
It says clearly that man was created in the image of God. But women were made from man as we can see in Genesis 2:22.
"Man" in Scripture doesn't necessarily literally mean "man".
Otherwise it means that only men are sinners, only men can be saved and so on.
Women were clearly not made in the image of men. We are completely different; physically, biologically, genetically and emotionally.
If you read 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 which I quoted it clearly says the opposite then what you are saying now as it claims man was made in the glory and image of God but women in the image of man.
That's how I see it too. The only difference is that man may have been made in the glory and image of God in the beginning, but that changed after sin entered the picture and man went into a fallen state.
It's possible that when Jesus was having a meal with them that he told them who he was, and why he did the things that he did. It's also possible that that's why tax collectors and sinners invited Jesus to eat with them in the first place; because they wanted to know.
But I don't believe that Jesus only accepted the invitation because he knew, or intended, that everyone would end up converted.
Jesus gave all people a choice. The rich young ruler walked away from Jesus when he was challenged about his money. In John 6, many disciples said that Jesus' teaching was too hard and walked away. They were people who believed in Jesus and were following him; yet they left.
Jesus let these people go - even though he had talked with them and spent time with them. He didn't say "well that was a waste of my time", and he didn't pick people who would be guaranteed to follow him, believe in him and have eternal life - look at his relationship with Judas.
So are you saying that if someone is a thief/killer/con artist and they also happen to be poor, starving, cold, dehydrated or whatever, you would not consider helping them unless they repent first?
So, another question; are you saying that we should only hang around with non Christians if we can guarantee that they will be converted one day, otherwise it's a waste of time and we'll end up like them?
I don't think you have a clue about me.
If you read 1 Corinthians 11:7-9 which I quoted it clearly says the opposite then what you are saying now as it claims man was made in the glory and image of God but women in the image of man.
No it doesn't.
It says that woman was made FOR man. In Genesis 2 God said that it was not good for man to be alone.. The animals were all in pairs, Adam was not; so God created woman.
1 Corinthians 11:7-9 does not say that woman was made in the image of man. Like I said, that's obviously not the case; we are different physically, emotionally and genetically. If we weren't, the human race would not continue; men don't bear children.
Let's see what the Bible has to say about this:
Genesis 2:22-23 And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, “This at last is gone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”
1 Corinthians 11:7-9 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.
Now I am not saying that woman or man are the same as each other or vise versa.
Nowhere does it say woman was created in God's image as how could God bear the Image of man and woman?
It is from the LXX of Proverbs. Sophia is Greek for wisdom, which seems personified in that book.I do not know where they got the Sophia reference.
I do not know where they got the Sophia reference.
That is not what the Bible says on the subject. That is what you have interpreted two, isolated, verses to mean.
That is what "made in the image of " means.
If woman is made in man's image, she should be just like him. That's what image means.
Yet it could be said that women and men have almost opposite characteristics.
Firstly, Genesis 1 says that God created mankind; male and female, and made them in his image.
Secondly, that is the whole debate of this thread. Scripture says that God created men and women in his image; Scripture also talks about God giving birth to us, and his creation, giving us new life, nurturing us etc. Therefore God, who is Spirit, has some female characteristics or qualities.
And if you are going to take Scripture that literally, you need to consider the following;
"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil," John 3:19.
"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel", Romans 2:16
"Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life," Romans 5:18
Scripture says that MEN are sinners, do evil deeds and will be judged by God - it doesn't say WOMEN will be, so presumably we are perfect and not sinners.
"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned," John 15:6
Presumably if a woman doesn't abide in Christ, it is not a problem.
"If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men", Romans 12:18.
Presumably Paul's readers didn't have to live in peace with women, since Scripture does not say that.
I'm sure you can see the problems that arise if we take the word men in Scripture to apply only to those of the male gender.