Even though there are several things I disagree with you about, I want you to know that I do believe that there is some common ground between secular feminism and biblical femininity. I also think that you are one of the best example of a Christian woman who knows where to draw the lines. I only began this thread because of your suggestion. I knew there would be men that were hostile and even women who are more secular than Christian in this conversation, but I think you bring a godly balance and I thank you.
Thank you, I appreciate this.
I respectfully disagree. If men and women thought alike there would be no sexual abuse.
You do realise that some women commit sexual abuse? A smaller proportion of us, but it does happen and mustn't be overlooked.
This is what I'm trying to say; not that everyone thinks alike, but that there isn't a "male" way of thinking and a "female" way of thinking, but a huge diversity of ways of thinking, some of which are more common to men and some more common to women, but none exclusive to either sex.
The only way the world can be changed is by the new birth of Christ brought into the hearts of unregenerate people. This is why the Great Commission is the only task Christ gave the Church. Political activism is only a temporary change, and will always fall back when despotic leaders resume power. The only hope that is a sure hope is Christ returning and transforming the world. All else is vanity.
Hmm. What do you think of the concept of already-inaugurated eschatology? The idea that the reign of God is breaking into and transforming human lives now, as a foretaste of the fullness of what is to come?
"Contemporary" has a implication of temporary and superficial. Contemporary is meaningless. Christianity at its core does not change, for the core of Christianity is Christ and His Holy Spirit. Likewise, the core of feminism has not changed. The core I am thinking of is the good part, not bad. The right for women to be respected and not abused.
Yes, this is my point. Dave's quoting a few fringe whackos from the 70s as if they define feminism, rather than recognising that those quotes aren't the core of feminism at all.
All children are born with the knowledge of right and wrong. That knowledge is given by God and is in their conscience.
I disagree. Studies in human cognitive development have shown that we develop a sense of right and wrong as we grow; our conscience is
formed by our environment.
All children know that they should have a father and a mother. All children know that the mother is the primary caregiver of children. That is God given and God ordained. Feminists want to reject that truth. When parents divorce, children know that it is wrong which is why they always hope their parents will get back together. You may say that the job of the breadwinner is culturally defined, but it is not. Am I saying that woman can't be a breadwinner? No. I am not. However, that is not the order of creation, and children know this in their hearts. So when I used the term "broken" this is what I mean. The children see it as broken. Can the children overcome? Of course, they can. Every family is dysfunctional is some way so all children have to overcome something when they grow up.
Yeah, no, sorry, this is no better. Different family patterns are not necessarily dysfunctional or broken (although there are many broken and dysfunctional homes, and many of them even conform to traditional stereotypes). It's not dysfunctional or broken to have a mother as breadwinner
if that works for the family concerned. This really is flaming.
I would argue that our human spirit is what determines our gender and the soul and body are expressions of that masculine or feminine spirit.
You can hold that belief, but I'd like to see a shred of evidence before you claim it's any more valid than my belief that spirit/soul has no gender, and that sex and gender are purely a matter of physiology.
Because we see ourselves as being male and female we assume God must also be male and female. That is true anthropomorphism and projection on our part. God identifies Himself in the masculine, not the feminine. Yet He was able to conceive the idea of a feminine. If God were feminine don't you think he would call himself a she? Yet He never does anywhere in Scripture, with the exception of simile. Jesus said to Jerusalem he wished he could like a mother hen scoop them up in his wings.
I don't know how I'm not being clear on this.
I'm not saying God is feminine. I'm saying that defining God in terms of human sex is inappropriate. We can't project back from our bodies/bodied experience, onto the creator of the universe.
We can't limit God's being by the limited nature of our language.
That's what I'm trying to say.
