Baptist views on feminism

[Ringo84]

dude, if you're just going to take stuff out of context, why debate you?

What am I taking out of context?

Despite your protests, that is exactly what you're saying, ok? If we can't agree on what words mean, whats the point?

No...that's not what I'm saying. The fact remains that pregnancy and labor take strength that men don't have.

Why do you insist on using this example? This is a horrible example because men can't experience these things. We don't know if men could bear these or not, so to cite this as reason for women not being the "weaker vessel" is not a good example.

Men can't experience those things because they aren't biologically built to handle them. Women are, which means that in those areas, women are stronger than men.

A so-called "weaker vessel" would not be able to handle pregnancy and labor. Women can.
Ringo

 

[Brad2009]

The out of context is when you're like, gottcha! You said running a household is difficult, therefore you're contradicting yourself when you say men are stronger. Or you ask a question based on one sentence and ignore that the answer was in the next sentence. Its tedious and I'm done with it.

But if you read instead of pick apart, its pretty clear what I'm saying is that men are stronger, physically. Men can do things that women can't, or at least shouldn't because it would be ridiculously inefficient. Men are capable of the toil associated with running a house, both today and historically, without the same drop in efficacy. Thus women are 'weaker' - not less smart, just physically less capable of performing certain tasks. If you can't agree to this, I don't know what you could possibly agree to. It seems like you're just argueing semantics for absolutely no reason.

Emphasis needed on the historic aspect because what was plain and obvious has become distorted to diminish my sisters in Christ and I don't like that.

And for the last time, enduring the pain of childbirth == higher pain threshold, no matter what semantic based arguement you have. The words don't change the reality. Because women give birth doesn't mean that women are well suited for baling hay or pushing a plow, get it?

 

[Ringo84]

Labor involves more than a higher pain threshold, as a woman's body has to have the strength to push an object the size of a watermelon out of a space the size of a lemon (or so I'm told). There's a lot more to that than higher pain threshold.

While it's true that women may not have the same amount of upper body strength as men, that doesn't mean that they are a "weaker vessel". In fact, considering that women's bodies must endure monthly bleeding, bearing a child and giving birth to a child, I would say that technically, women are stronger than men in many ways.
Ringo

 

[Brad2009]

See, you keep going to pain/mental anguish and equating it with physical strength. Its rubbish dude, I explicitly say physical strength and then you argue emotional strength/pain threshold.

Of course I'll concede that women have stronger muscles around their birth canal. Don't you see how non-sequitor that is?

Women are weaker wrt physical labor, period.

 

[Ringo84]

See, you keep going to pain/mental anguish and equating it with physical strength. Its rubbish dude, I explicitly say physical strength and then you argue emotional strength/pain threshold.

That's not what I said. In my previous post I specifically said that: in order for a woman's body to endure carrying a baby for nine months and then giving birth to that baby, it has to be strong. My argument has nothing to do with pain.

Of course I'll concede that women have stronger muscles around their birth canal. Don't you see how non-sequitor that is?

It takes more than powerful muscles around the birth canal to endure pregnancy and labor. It takes a strong back, strong pelvic muscles and a strong constitution.

Women are weaker wrt physical labor, period.

I don't even concede that. Women may not be as suited for manual labor as men, but I don't necessarily believe that they are "weaker".
Ringo

 

[Brad2009]

Then I guess we will just have to disagree on what reality plainly is then. Weaker means just that, not inferior. If you want to argue semantics and non-sequitours, argue away. I'll trouble you no more.

 

[Ringo84]

Weaker means just that, not inferior

I never implied that it did.

If you want to argue semantics and non-sequitours, argue away. I'll trouble you no more.

How do you figure that's "semantics" or a "non-sequitor"? A woman's body is stronger than a man's because it can carry a baby for nine months and then give birth to that baby. Common sense

I don't know how much more clear I can be without drawing you a picture. I don't think the problem is in my reasoning but the fact that some of you simply aren't listening to what I'm trying to say.
Ringo

 

[becareful]

Hi Ringo,

If you're open to Biblical discussion on the Man/Woman relationship, with proof from the Bible, I'd like to ask you some questions...
Do you believe in God?
Do you believe that God is omnipotent?
Do you believe that the Word is God and God is the Word?
Did God create man?
Did God create woman?

If you've answered no to any of the above questions... well... don't worry about reading any further.

If you've answered yes to all of these... let's see how it went down in the beginning.
In Gen 2 (KJV)
<20 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 an help meet for him.
21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. >

Two keys here v.20 "there was not found an help meet for him." and v.22 "brought her unto the man." The first, God provided a helper to man, not a co-doer or equal partner in all things... specifically a helper. Secondly, God presented woman unto the man... God presented a helper to man. Let's also put this in context... this is the Garden of Eden, at this point in time everything was perfect! No right or wrong existed.

Now... Let's consider for a moment God's design for Spiritual Authority... more questions... Standing on the scripture of 1 Corinthians 11:2-3.
Is God the head of Christ?
Is Christ the head of man?
Is man the head of woman?
Let me be really clear here... this is God's design for Spiritual Authority specifically dealing with worship.

Can you agree?

Now how about a reasonable why?
Man is absolutley different that a woman. Obviously and with few exceptions... men are made physically stronger than women. What might not be so obvious to some... is that men and women think totally different. Men tend to process things in a more factual and direct and straight forward method, whereas women tend to process things more through feelings. Can you see any benefit as to why God has put a man as head of woman?

Let's also for a moment change the perspective of your argument that there is something negative about a woman being submissive to her husband. Consider this: Why do I have to be responsible for me and my wife and my kids and my house and our food and our cars and home maintenance and car maintenance and the kids want a new ipod and they want unlimited text messaging on their cell phones? Why can't she just do it?

If you don't think there is a huge amount of responsibility that goes with being the head of the household... well you're sadly mistaken.

You sound like you have the right heart about these matters just some mistaken beliefs of marriage and feminism. I've often seen it... when things are not constructed the way God has given us... it turns out a total failure.

Let me ask another question... since feminism has been constructed and God's plan has been so brutally attacked what are the divorce rate statistics? I really don't know but I would think they would reflect the change in the Christian household... where men have been shirking their responsibility and women have been assuming their roles, unsuccessfully.

What I've really witnessed with most feminist inclined women... is that they want to pick and choose responsibilities to make them feel more powerful... but when it comes down to it... most are not equipped to handle the pressure of such massive responsibilities. I just feel that the bad deeds of a few unChristian men and unChristian women have so perverted God's plan. But... God's plan hasn't changed.

Christ washed the feet of his attendents... if I put myself in this position and put my wife before myself... then she really is not my equal... she is more than me. Isn't that what Christ did for us all?

God Bless!
becareful

 

[Ringo84]

od provided a helper to man, not a co-doer or equal partner in all things... specifically a helper.

Helpers can be equal partners.

Is God the head of Christ?
Is Christ the head of man?

Yes...because He's God.

Is man the head of woman?

Nope.

Man is absolutley different that a woman. Obviously and with few exceptions..

Since I'm different than you, does that mean that you're subject to my authority or that I'm subject to yours?

men are made physically stronger than women

Men have more upper ody strength than women, but I don't buy that men are absolutely stronger than women.

is that men and women think totally different. Men tend to process things in a more factual and direct and straight forward method, whereas women tend to process things more through feelings.

So what?

Can you see any benefit as to why God has put a man as head of woman?

No.

Let's also for a moment change the perspective of your argument that there is something negative about a woman being submissive to her husband.

I never said that. What I said is that it's strange that the verse asks only women to submit when we know that two-way accountability happens in every marriage.

Why do I have to be responsible for me and my wife and my kids and my house and our food and our cars and home maintenance and car maintenance and the kids want a new ipod and they want unlimited text messaging on their cell phones? Why can't she just do it?

Your wife can be responsible for herself, but held accountable to you for her actions. At the same time, you are held accountable to her your your actions. The kids aren't grown yet (I assume), so they still have to be under your authority.

just some mistaken beliefs of marriage and feminism.

What are my "mistaken beliefs"?

since feminism has been constructed and God's plan has been so brutally attacked what are the divorce rate statistics? I really don't know but I would think they would reflect the change in the Christian household... where men have been shirking their responsibility and women have been assuming their roles, unsuccessfully.

You blame the divorce rate on women not disproportionately submitting to their husbands?

most are not equipped to handle the pressure of such massive responsibilities.

I would disagree. The age where women are delicate flowers who can't handle large responsibilities died a long time ago. Women are equipped to handle whatever responsibilities set before them.

Christ washed the feet of his attendents... if I put myself in this position and put my wife before myself... then she really is not my equal... she is more than me. Isn't that what Christ did for us all?

That's what you both should do in your marriage.
Ringo

 

[becareful]

Ringo says:
Helpers can be equal partners.

Can be but they don't have to be... with the evidence and scripture to support it you are drawing your conclusions from a secular world not God.

Ringo says:
Yes...because He's God.

becareful says:
Is man the head of woman?

Ringo says:
Nope.

Then you are in clear objection to scripture... and this is about your secular vision of God/Christ/man/woman relationship (1 Corinthians 11:2-3)
. I should stop here... awww but I'll continue just for argument's sake.

Ringo says:
Since I'm different than you, does that mean that you're subject to my authority or that I'm subject to yours?

You're missing the point... it's not just that women are different. They are obviously better at some things and men are better at others... like leading their families (including their wife).

Ringo says:
Men have more upper ody strength than women, but I don't buy that men are absolutely stronger than women.

You're wrong here too... look at the records of any athletic event. What gender is bigger, faster, stronger, more stamina, etc... You're naive if you think it's just upper body strength. Have you ever worked out... how about leg presses, track, soccer, anything. If they are so equal why do they not play professional sports with men? As a general rule, men are physically stronger than women. But to turn that around... women are more nurturing than men. Women generally have more empathy and sympathy than men. Sometimes men just don't get why people are emotional.

becareful says:
is that men and women think totally different. Men tend to process things in a more factual and direct and straight forward method, whereas women tend to process things more through feelings.

Ringo says:
So what?

So what? Can't you even imagine for a moment that a man, in general, that thinks in a logical straight-forward manner might be better at make hard decisions that affect his family better than a woman who might be distressed because of her emotions? What if a child died... who do you think would be better equipped to handle the tough decisions... a father or mother?

You've become so obstinate in your view that you're not interested in considering why God made it this way. You're too busy defending an undefendable position.

Ringo says:
No.

Ringo says:
I never said that. What I said is that it's strange that the verse asks only women to submit when we know that two-way accountability happens in every marriage.

Accountability is in NO WAY the same as RESPONSIBILITY.

Ringo says:
Your wife can be responsible for herself, but held accountable to you for her actions. At the same time, you are held accountable to her your your actions. The kids aren't grown yet (I assume), so they still have to be under your authority.

No, I as the head of my household am responsible. Accountable to each other sure.

Ringo says:
What are my "mistaken beliefs"?

That feminism is superior than the Bible.

Ringo says:
You blame the divorce rate on women not disproportionately submitting to their husbands?

No only absorbed one thing... I also said that men are shirking their duties as the head of the household.

Ringo says:
I would disagree. The age where women are delicate flowers who can't handle large responsibilities died a long time ago. Women are equipped to handle whatever responsibilities set before them.

I never said women were delicate flowers.


Are you married?


God Bless!
becareful

 

[Ringo84]

Can be but they don't have to be... with the evidence and scripture to support it you are drawing your conclusions from a secular world not God.

In this case, they are equal.

Then you are in clear objection to scripture... and this is about your secular vision of God/Christ/man/woman relationship (1 Corinthians 11:2-3)
. I should stop here... awww but I'll continue just for argument's sake.

No I'm not. Mutual accountability - a form of submission - happens in every marriage. That's why it's strange for the verse to ask only women to submit.

it's not just that women are different. They are obviously better at some things and men are better at others... like leading their families (including their wife).

Exactly: men and women have complementary strengths. It's not that one gender is "stronger" or "weaker" than the other, but that men and women simply have different strengths and weaknesses.

look at the records of any athletic event. What gender is bigger, faster, stronger, more stamina, etc... You're naive if you think it's just upper body strength. Have you ever worked out... how about leg presses, track, soccer, anything. If they are so equal why do they not play professional sports with men? As a general rule, men are physically stronger than women.

Women do participate in athletic events and break some of the same records that men do. Women are not "weaker" than men. In fact, when you factor in pregnancy and labor, they are stronger in some ways.

So what? Can't you even imagine for a moment that a man, in general, that thinks in a logical straight-forward manner might be better at make hard decisions that affect his family better than a woman who might be distressed because of her emotions? What if a child died... who do you think would be better equipped to handle the tough decisions... a father or mother?

That assumes that men are ALL logical and practical and women are ALL nurturing and emotional. Since you don't know every man and woman on earth, you can't make that assumption.

You've become so obstinate in your view that you're not interested in considering why God made it this way. You're too busy defending an undefendable position.

My position is far from indefensible, as I am not experiencing a tough time arguing for my point of view.

Accountability is in NO WAY the same as RESPONSIBILITY.

When did I say that it was?

Accountability is a form of submission, and it comes from both the man and the woman in a marriage.

No, I as the head of my household am responsible. Accountable to each other sure.

The wife is a part of the relationship, which means that she too is responsible for what happens in the relationship.

That feminism is superior than the Bible.

When did I say that?

No only absorbed one thing... I also said that men are shirking their duties as the head of the household.

They don't have that duty. They share it with their wives.
Ringo

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Let's go back to the OT for a bit shall we courtesy of John MacArthur:

The Curse on the Woman - Part 1 John MacArthur


The Curse on the Woman--Part 2 John MacArthur

Just heard it today on the radio, here's the links for the transcripts.

Take it for what it's worth.

Thanks.

 

[becareful]

Ringo...

You didn't answer from the previous post... Are you married?

God Bless!
becareful

 

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Ringo...

You didn't answer from the previous post... Are you married?

God Bless!
becareful

In a previous post Ringo mentioned that he was not married. He also responded to objections of him talking on the subject since he is not married. I don't agree with his views but I just didn't want Ringo to have to repeat himself all over again.

 

[MrJG]

becareful,
I am in total agreement with all of your posts (as if it really matters ). You are correct in saying that Ringo is arguing the secular viewpoint of feminism over the Bible.

Can be but they don't have to be... with the evidence and scripture to support it you are drawing your conclusions from a secular world not God.
In this case, they are equal.

Ringo, you offer no Biblical proof as to why you believe this way, you just say "this is the way it is, so this is the way it is." You offer no argument or reason as to why you say this.

You've become so obstinate in your view that you're not interested in considering why God made it this way. You're too busy defending an undefendable position.

My position is far from indefensible, as I am not experiencing a tough time arguing for my point of view.

It is easy to argue in circles my friend. Every argument that anyone offers up, whether Biblical or practical, you shoot down because you do not believe things to be that way.

 

[becareful]

ringo says:
In this case, they are equal.

From your secular point of view they are equal.

becareful says:
Then you are in clear objection to scripture... and this is about your secular vision of God/Christ/man/woman relationship (1 Corinthians 11:2-3)
. I should stop here... awww but I'll continue just for argument's sake.

No I'm not. Mutual accountability - a form of submission - happens in every marriage. That's why it's strange for the verse to ask only women to submit.

If you are going against what scripture is explicitly saying you are in objection to the scripture. It is not strange for the verse to specify only women to submit. That is what it means! Your point of view is appearing to try to change scripture.

ringo says:
Exactly: men and women have complementary strengths. It's not that one gender is "stronger" or "weaker" than the other, but that men and women simply have different strengths and weaknesses.

Not exactly... all characteristics of a man/woman relationship are not complementary. Using an academic analogy... What if both my wife and I are good at mathematics... and neither one of us is any good at English. If one of us must pass English or we both fail... From your point of view... who takes the lead to make sure we pass? If, as you say, we were absolutely complementary in strengths... one of us would be good at math and one good at English.

Actually, you contradict youself when you say men and women have complementary strengths. You have acknowledged "strength"... therefore one gender IS "stronger" or "weaker" than the other (implying a complementary situation). It just depends on the specific characteristic.

Women do participate in athletic events and break some of the same records that men do. Women are not "weaker" than men. In fact, when you factor in pregnancy and labor, they are stronger in some ways.

In general, head-to-head competition... based solely on physical strength men are stronger. That's the way God made us. Pregnancy and labor??? Men have not been blessed with the ability have children. There is no comparison. You're grasping at straws.

ringo says:
That assumes that men are ALL logical and practical and women are ALL nurturing and emotional. Since you don't know every man and woman on earth, you can't make that assumption.

If you'd read my quote closely... I said "in general". For the most part it is true men tend to be more logical and women tend to be more nurturing and driven by emotion.
Anyway... what if I am making an assumption about all women and men? You are making an all out assumption that men and women are totally equal... I assure you my young neophyte... that absolutely is not the case.
What about answering the hard questions that I asked? Who is better equipped to handle highly emotional family disasters?

ringo says:
My position is far from indefensible, as I am not experiencing a tough time arguing for my point of view.

Can you with scripture... defend your position?

ringo says:
The wife is a part of the relationship, which means that she too is responsible for what happens in the relationship.

This is not in dispute. The only thing that has to be answered is who is to take a leadership role. Both the man and woman can't lead... I guarantee you that most successful Christian marriages are lead by the man.

If there isn't one leader(the man) in the household... it's kind of like a conversation between Sponge Bob and Patrick that goes something like this....
Patrick: What do you want to do today?
Sponge Bob: I don't know, what do you wanna do?
Patrick: I don't know, what do you wanna do?
Sponge Bob: I don't know, what do you wanna do?
Patrick: I don't know, what do you wanna do?
Sponge Bob: I don't know, what do you wanna do?
.
.
.

becareful says:
said that men are shirking their duties as the head of the household.

ringo replies:
They don't have that duty. They share it with their wives.

This is your position... not God's.

God Bless!
becareful

 

[becareful]

becareful,
I am in total agreement with all of your posts (as if it really matters ). You are correct in saying that Ringo is arguing the secular viewpoint of feminism over the Bible.

Thanks BWB! It does matter... if you can shine your light on it and anyone else to make sure I'm not in error I truely appreciate it. This shows edification of one another.

Thanks Again!
becareful

 

[becareful]

In a previous post Ringo mentioned that he was not married. He also responded to objections of him talking on the subject since he is not married. I don't agree with his views but I just didn't want Ringo to have to repeat himself all over again.

Thanks Matthew. I didn't realize that... I got caught up in the first 10 pages of this thread... and then jumped to the current conversation. I also apologize to Ringo... I'll go back and catch up on that tomorrow...

Good Night.

God Bless!
becareful

 

[MrJG]

If you are going against what scripture is explicitly saying you are in objection to the scripture. It is not strange for the verse to specify only women to submit. That is what it means! Your point of view is appearing to try to change scripture.

In general, head-to-head competition... based solely on physical strength men are stronger. That's the way God made us. Pregnancy and labor??? Men have not been blessed with the ability have children. There is no comparison. You're grasping at straws.

I have tried to tell Ringo this before only to have him deny that he is denying scripture because he is not denying it. I have also tried to tell him that you cannot compare the strengths of men and women in the area of pregnancy because men are not physically able to be pregnant. Not that men couldn't handle it, just that men were not designed by God with that ability.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

I honestly can't believe you all have been going on and on about this with Ringo...seriously...this thread is just long winded at this point and honestly Ringo has not a leg to stand on(no offense brother but you don't!)
Fundamentals of it all 1
Progressive(at least) viewpoint 0.

thanks.