Yup. God is responsible for the punishment. That's pretty obvious. He's the one that throws them out of the garden.
But notice that no one thinks we can't use painkillers to deal with the pain.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yup. God is responsible for the punishment. That's pretty obvious. He's the one that throws them out of the garden.He did say, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing."
Those are the laws of nature (except biogenesis, which is probably false). That's not the same thing as "Women he made moody, menstrual, and needy." I can't believe anyone would actually post that.
When someone makes nature his god, I think he goes astray.The fool denies there is a God.
Any normal person can see the basic logic of nature, and thereby the hand of God. If we wish to subvert and deny nature, we also subvert and deny God. Bad move.
I'll take an Advil for a toothache.Yup. God is responsible for the punishment. That's pretty obvious. He's the one that throws them out of the garden.
But notice that no one thinks we can't use painkillers to deal with the pain.
Anyone can create a web page.
Here's a reasonable discussion of what "natural law" means in the context of theology: http://www.nlnrac.org/classical/aquinas.Anyone can create a web page.
The fact that the Jesus rose from the dead sort of refutes natural law, doesn't it?Here's a reasonable discussion of what "natural law" means in the context of theology: http://www.nlnrac.org/classical/aquinas.
It is supposedly principles, including moral principles, which anyone can know from creation, without divine revelation. Paul seems to suggest this in parts of Rom 1 and 2, though the exegesis of Romans requires you to look at his whole argument.
I should note that natural law in this sense is controversial among Protestants, because it suggests knowledge of matters that are typically the subject of revelation, through purely human intellect. But since God created that intellect, some accept the idea.
Not in the sense that Aquinas is using natural law. You're thinking of the laws of physics and biology, which is a different thing. (It doesn't actually refute the laws of biology. People don't just come back to life. That's why it's considered a miracle. If there weren't laws to be violated, the concept of miracles would make no sense. Imagine a world in which dead people regularly came back to life. Jesus' resurrection wouldn't mean anything.)The fact that the Jesus rose from the dead sort of refutes natural law, doesn't it?
I can't think of any laws besides the Lord's law and the "laws" of physics and biology. Is someone making up laws and calling them "natural laws"?Not in the sense that Aquinas is using natural law. You're thinking of the laws of physics and biology, which is a different thing. (It doesn't actually refute the laws of biology. People don't just come back to life. That's why it's considered a miracle. If there weren't laws to be violated, the concept of miracles would make no sense.)
Well, I'm going to avoid calling them "made up" since I'm not taking either side in the controversy. But yes, the concept of natural law in theology means something other than revealed law and the laws of nature.I can't think of any laws besides the Lord's law and the "laws" of physics and biology. Is someone making up laws and calling them "natural laws"?
Could someone have been advancing an agenda by creating these "laws"?Well, I'm going to avoid calling them "made up" since I'm not taking either side in the controversy. But yes, the concept of natural law in theology means something other than revealed law and the laws of nature.
I would agree but it may have to do with the mosaic Jew. Adam and Eve refers to the fall of the Jewish people. They turn away from the righteousness through faith which Abraham brought. There was no need for the Law but they failed to believe in the God which brought them out of Egypt. Adam was condemned to work the soil, which refers to works of the Law. Eve's labor pains were increased and that man would rule over her. (I admit that God hasn't shown me what that means.)I would think prophecy would deal with anything after the moment it was spoken.
I agree. But I also think the punishment is domination, nor a healthy sort of male leadership. That is, I don't think you can use this passage to say that all forms of male headship are punishment. There are other reasons to think women should be treated equally within the Church, but I wouldn't cite this passage. After all, Gen 2 says that woman was created as the helper for man. That does not portray equality as being the case before the fall. That depends upon NT insight: that we are all equal in Christ.
But one would ask, "Is it then the Lord's will that men rule over women?" If so, then I would categorize it as a command.
It is right under your nose. The fact that women menstruate and experience pain in childbirth are natural laws. The consequence of this is that woman has a certain attitude towards procreation and therefore the procreative partner, man.I can't think of any laws besides the Lord's law and the "laws" of physics and biology. Is someone making up laws and calling them "natural laws"?
she can't repent of her sin and no longer have birth pains.I don't really see it as curse. A woman can repent of her sin and refuse to obey men who make unreasonable demands.
Do you have evidence of that?she can't repent of her sin and no longer have birth pains.
Do you have evidence of that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?