Men Step Up

[Robinsegg]

But how many times have women heard 'if you just...he would'...I have heard it more times than I care to count. Do you know how many times I've read that men don't step up cause of feminism or the feminism of the church??? That imo is men blaming women.

Here I will have to somewhat disagree with you.

If I take a ministry position that I have *not been called to*, I am keeping the person God *is* calling to that position from filling it. I am causing my brother or sister to stumble. I am *very careful*, therefore, to make sure I don't accept a ministry position I'm not being called to fill.

Thus, if a woman fills a position "just because it's empty" (*not* because she's called to it), then she *is* usurping a man's position (if a man was called to fill it) and is in the wrong. All too often, Christians (male & female) fill a position "because someone needs to", and not because they feel truly called to that ministry.

Rachel

 

[Conservativation]

Why do you even post of forums, Cons? ....You do nicely having conversations with yourself...and you don't have misunderstandings either.

You are right....it isn't about the random dude in OK that I am concerned with....it is the mainstream authors that are blurring the lines between what is God-created and what is a weakness.

I don't need to feel better, or compare myself to others...especially grouping a certain gender together and battling against them (something that sounds very close to your posts)....it is SIN that I take issue with...and how the mainstream "church" is handling it.

Thats right MK, why just this weekend my church passed out XXX DVD's

They said well, he cant help it ladies, best he do it at home


But luckily we have you on the job, nailing sin in its infancy

 

[mkgal1]

If, as you now claim, your problem is that it was a confusing message that left room to fill in blanks, then why were you saying something else entirely a couple of pages ago. If you had, all along been saying "hey there's a problem in that this could be taken to be justifying sin" then there'd be no problem. But that's not at all what you've been saying. You've been saying all along that the author IS justifying or excusing sin.

Are you sure I said that? Because I am pretty sure I didn't say that.

 

[Conservativation]

Are you sure I said that? Because I am pretty sure I didn't say that.

Yes MK, Im sure....so is everyone else who read this....I dare say even lyndie would agree thats what youve been saying, cause its what she has been saying.

Yes, I am 10000000000000000000000% sure thats what you have said.

You do not get to argue for pages, then pull a cute switcheroo.

 

[chaz345]

I don't see them saying that, no

Ok then we must be reading two different threads.

 

[c1ners]

Are you sure I said that? Because I am pretty sure I didn't say that.

I'm pretty sure you didn't either. Him and Con are just reading into what you are saying and trying to tell you that you said what you didn't. Manipulation big time!

 

[Robinsegg]

Useful in what way? If you say, "I tend to sin in this manner . . . " how is that useful to them? Is it wrong for anyone to agree that its a sin? Or are you saying that its not a sin to have this tendency to ogle women . . . . . ?

Can't have it both ways, Cons.

The temptation isn't sin, the action of yielding to that temptation is sin.

Besides, 1 look (which *isn't* ogling, as you put this, so it's not directed specifically at you) *isn't* sin . . . it's noticing. Continued looking or thinking about her beyond the casual "nice looking woman" is sin.

Rachel

 

[Conservativation]

If, as you now claim, your problem is that it was a confusing message that left room to fill in blanks, then why were you saying something else entirely a couple of pages ago. If you had, all along been saying "hey there's a problem in that this could be taken to be justifying sin" then there'd be no problem. But that's not at all what you've been saying. You've been saying all along that the author IS justifying or excusing sin.

she has also been saying that MEN plural MEN are using it to justify it.

First that the author did, then that MEN did.....

 

[chaz345]

Are you sure I said that? Because I am pretty sure I didn't say that.

Yes I'm absolutley 100% positive that you said, many different times, that the author is excusing or justifying sin. Not that it could be taken that way but that that IS what she is doing.

 

[Conservativation]

Useful in what way? If you say, "I tend to sin in this manner . . . " how is that useful to them? Is it wrong for anyone to agree that its a sin? Or are you saying that its not a sin to have this tendency to ogle women . . . . . ?

Can't have it both ways, Cons.

Oh I don't know.....if "my brother" has a tendency to a certain weakness, I cant even imagine how that would be useful for me to know.....




Hopelessss



ok, I typed a comment that said go to w w w . e u n u c h s dot com I typed it like a regular www address and it popped up with some porn link

I am sorry that happened if anyone saw that. it was an accident.

sheesh

 

[mkgal1]

No that's just it. The urge itself, especially as relates to something like sex, or eating or anything else that we need is NOT wrong. What's done with the urge is. Even in the case of an affair, the temptation itself is not wrong, not a sin. In the case of the book and it's topic, NO the urge is not wrong, what is or isn't done in response to the urge is what's wrong.

The problem with asking God to take away the urge is that the urge is part of sex drive. That it's so often misapplied does not make the urge itself wrong or bad. But like Cons said to Janni, if you really want the urge gone, go find a man with zero sex drive because that's what removing the urge would result in.

Why does the sex drive need to go to zero?

There is a God-given sex drive...and there is a weakness that is taking that drive to an extreme....to the point of being selfish....dishonoring of the wife...if the man is unmarried, dishonoring to God.......devaluing of women...THAT should be asked to be taken away...the SINFULNESS...not the drive itself. There is NOTHING about the sex drive in its created form that is sinful...that is where the book gets blurry, IMO.

See...even you are blurring the line...not me. YOU are the one that is getting into the area of sex drive=sin.

 

[mkgal1]

Yes I'm absolutley 100% positive that you said, many different times, that the author is excusing or justifying sin. Not that it could be taken that way but that that IS what she is doing.

Where?

 

[Conservativation]

Thanks for clearing that up for us men MK.....sincerely.....who knew

 

[Conservativation]

Why does the sex drive need to go to zero?

There is a God-given sex drive...and there is a weakness that is taking that drive to an extreme....to the point of being selfish....dishonoring of the wife...if the man is unmarried, dishonoring to God.......devaluing of women...THAT should be asked to be taken away...the SINFULNESS...not the drive itself. There is NOTHING about the sex drive in its created form that is sinful...that is where the book gets blurry, IMO.

See...even you are blurring the line...not me. YOU are the one that is getting into the area of sex drive=sin.

Ohhhhhhhh


speechless. Never fail to amaze.

 

[c1ners]

Ohhhhhhhh


speechless. Never fail to amaze.

Do me a favor Con and tell me what MK's post says to you. In your own words. Can you do that without insulting her?

 

[chaz345]

Why does the sex drive need to go to zero?

There is a God-given sex drive...and there is a weakness that is taking that drive to an extreme....to the point of being selfish....dishonoring of the wife...if the man is unmarried, dishonoring to God.......devaluing of women...THAT should be asked to be taken away...the SINFULNESS...not the drive itself. There is NOTHING about the sex drive in its created form that is sinful...that is where the book gets blurry, IMO.

See...even you are blurring the line...not me. YOU are the one that is getting into the area of sex drive=sin.

No. In portraying the initial noticing, or the temptation to dwell longer or the temptation to think things as sin, which is what is being done, that's where the sex drive comes in. All of those things, not the doing of them but the temptation to do them, are a part of the sex drive.

 

[mkgal1]

No. In portraying the initial noticing, or the temptation to dwell longer or the temptation to think things as sin, which is what is being done, that's where the sex drive comes in. All of those things, not the doing of them but the temptation to do them, are a part of the sex drive.

I disagree. I have read in the Bible where it says NEVER does God tempt us to sin.....NEVER. So, that part of the sex drive is NOT God-created.

 

[chaz345]

I disagree. I have read in the Bible where it says NEVER does God tempt us to sin.....NEVER. So, that part of the sex drive is NOT God-created.

No. Like ANY other temptation it's not God doing the tempting. It's Satan. But doesn't Satan often use God given traits and characteristics as the mechanism by which He tempts?

 

[JanniGirl]

I've got to agree. God doesn't tempt us to sin. That goes against His very nature, as God seeks a relationship with us and wants to bring us close to Him. Sin separates us from God.

 

[chaz345]

I've got to agree. God doesn't tempt us to sin. That goes against His very nature, as God seeks a relationship with us and wants to bring us close to Him. Sin separates us from God.

But does Satan not often use God given traits and attributes as the way by which he tempts us? Isn't most temptation a corruption of a God given trait?