Women Working Outside the Home

[Strong in Him]

Your idea of forgiveness and Jesus truth about forgiveness is not the same.

If that person needs you back, then you take them back as Jesus said to, to reconcile with them.

I believe you can forgive someone and reconcile with them without having to share a home, or even a life, together.

I knew someone who forgave her rapists. That didn't mean that she didn't want to see justice being done and for them to avoid prison; it meant she refused to feel hatred for them, plan her revenge, let them constantly be in her thoughts and take over her life.
There are fathers who've forgiven the terrorists who killed their sons and relatives - that doesn't mean they want to live anywhere near them, never mind with them.
After the war, Corrie ten Boom was giving a talk about forgiveness. Afterwards a German man came up to her and apologised for the part his country played in the war. Corrie realised that this man had once been one of her guards; one who had treated the prisoners badly. She describes how difficult it was to raise her arm and shake his hand. She did it, but that doesn't mean they exchanged addresses and started having coffee together.

In the case of adultery, if my husband walked out on me, I could forgive him for doing so, refuse to hate him or hold his actions against him and even pray for him.
But that doesn't mean I would be able to trust him again, and might not even want a relationship with him in the future. He would have deliberately broken our marriage contract, and if he came back even 6 months afterwards, I would not feel obliged to live with him again.

Also, your forgiveness does no good if there is no action, it changed nothing, did nothing.

It might have changed the other person.

And also forced the other person to have a contempt heart to you for not opening your self to him.

If my husband committed adultery and walked out on me, then walked back a few months/years later and despised me for not welcoming him back, that would be HIS problem.
Committing adultery = breaking one of God's commandments, and violating the sanctity of marriage. Jesus talks about marriage being 2 people becoming one flesh; in God's eyes, two people are married when there is sexual union. The marriage contract between us would have been broken - by him - as he vowed "forsaking all others, til death do us part".

But if that person is repented and just made a mistake

Making a mistake is forgetting something on the shopping list, or forgetting to pay a bill. Sleeping with another woman and then running off to be with her is more than "a mistake". The mistake might have been not talking about/addressing what was wrong in the marriage, instead of letting it get to the point where he acted of his feelings.

Not that my husband is about to run off with anyone; I'm just using it as an example.

and your not in harms way then there is no excuses to show love and compassion.

I might feel compassion for him - that doesn't mean I could trust him again.

With that said.

You either follow Jesus or you dont.

Jesus said if you have anything against your brother, then go to him and offer a gift.

How more important is a spouse then a brother?

A spouse is someone who has made promises, before God and witnesses, to love and be faithful to you. If THEY choose to break that contract and those vows, who says that forgiveness means that you have to welcome them back into your home, and later, bed?
And supposing they had left you for 5 years and then THEY wanted a divorce? I don't know about where you are, but in the UK someone can be divorced after 5 years, even without their consent.

Also, what is your reward if you do not let them back into your life? nothing, you did what the rest of the world did, nothing.

Why do you boil every forgivness topic into a abusive one?

I haven't posted in that many forgiveness threads, so you can hardly say that I make every such topic about abuse.
To ask forgiveness means that you have done something wrong, to, or against, another person. A person can abuse someone else's good nature, take advantage of them, bad mouth them or ruin their character/reputation - or simply cause hurt by making assumptions, false accusations or telling lies about them.

LEts say there is no abuse to it, lets just say he made a couple mistakes and he has a sexuall addiction and needs help and there is no one to leed him to help, it will conrtoll his lide, but you could help him, lead him into the right direction?

If he talked to me, admitted he had a problem and wanted help for his sexual addiction because he didn't want to cheat on me - sure.
If he just went off, saying "it's not my fault; it's an illness" and didn't talk to me, or a doctor or counsellor, or tell me what he was doing - probably not.
And it would depend on whether he wanted help or whether he only confessed because he got found out.

But becouse of your pretend forgivness with no action he is in worse repair.

I think that I might well be able to say to him, "I forgive you for cheating on me, and now understand that it was due to an illness/addiction." I think I could show my forgiveness, and care for him, by getting him counselling and the help he needed. That is very different from saying, "it's ok; here's your door key back and what time will you be home tonight?"

We all need each other, and to pretend that you do not need to act out of being hurt, well, thats a excuses.

In the above scenario might well have a relationship with him as a friend afterwards. That doesn't mean I would be obliged to stay married to him; to put up with his infidelities and ignore the fact that I didn't trust him. If I did that, it would be unlikely that I COULD forgive properly, because I would see him constantly, be reminded of what he had done, and might do again, and keep re-living my hurt and his wrongdoing.

Forgiveness means to except that person back into your life unless they will harm you.

I disagree.
Forgiveness, I believe, means not holding someone's sin against them; constantly telling others how much you have been hurt - "poor me" - and refusing to think of ways of getting revenge on the one who's hurt you.
If someone had robbed you and gone to prison, it would mean accepting that they had done their time, and not making them pay over and above what the law had decided was fair.

And even if, Jesus said to turn the other cheek and offer it to them. Because your the perfect example.

So if someone hits you; let them do it again? If someone steals your jewellery, run after them and make sure they have your bank card too?

20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

Our righteousness DOES exceed that of the Pharisees - Jesus was made sin for us so that we could become the righteousness of God, 2 Corinthians 5:21.
Pharisees - Jews - do not accept this, nor that Yeshua was the Messiah.

We cannot become righteous, be born again or enter the kingdom of heaven unless we accept Christ, are forgiven by him and live in him.

 

[bekkilyn]

Who am I hurting?

No one.

Who did I blame?

No one

I quoted facts, not opinion.

It takes 2 to cheat, I blame no one so stop putting words into my mouth.

You are claiming that married women need to stay out of the workplace because they will cause men to be temped to cheat. You made no mention whatsoever that men also need to stay out of the workplace for the same reason. So first, you attacked all married women by accusing them specifically of being prone to cheat simply by their presence there, and that it was really only a matter of time before it happened.

Secondly, you attacked the integrity of married people (the *majority*) who never cheat simply because of what happened to you personally. *Everyone* must be punished. This particular attack would still be the case even if you claimed that neither men or women should be in the workplace, but secluded at home away from anyone else once they married.

Hence, yes, you are hurting people with these attacks that you erroneously claim to be facts.

 

[bekkilyn]

I believe you can forgive someone and reconcile with them without having to share a home, or even a life, together.

I knew someone who forgave her rapists. That didn't mean that she didn't want to see justice being done and for them to avoid prison; it meant she refused to feel hatred for them, plan her revenge, let them constantly be in her thoughts and take over her life.
There are fathers who've forgiven the terrorists who killed their sons and relatives - that doesn't mean they want to live anywhere near them, never mind with them.
After the war, Corrie ten Boom was giving a talk about forgiveness. Afterwards a German man came up to her and apologised for the part his country played in the war. Corrie realised that this man had once been one of her guards; one who had treated the prisoners badly. She describes how difficult it was to raise her arm and shake his hand. She did it, but that doesn't mean they exchanged addresses and started having coffee together.

In the case of adultery, if my husband walked out on me, I could forgive him for doing so, refuse to hate him or hold his actions against him and even pray for him.
But that doesn't mean I would be able to trust him again, and might not even want a relationship with him in the future. He would have deliberately broken our marriage contract, and if he came back even 6 months afterwards, I would not feel obliged to live with him again.



It might have changed the other person.



If my husband committed adultery and walked out on me, then walked back a few months/years later and despised me for not welcoming him back, that would be HIS problem.
Committing adultery = breaking one of God's commandments, and violating the sanctity of marriage. Jesus talks about marriage being 2 people becoming one flesh; in God's eyes, two people are married when there is sexual union. The marriage contract between us would have been broken - by him - as he vowed "forsaking all others, til death do us part".



Making a mistake is forgetting something on the shopping list, or forgetting to pay a bill. Sleeping with another woman and then running off to be with her is more than "a mistake". The mistake might have been not talking about/addressing what was wrong in the marriage, instead of letting it get to the point where he acted of his feelings.

Not that my husband is about to run off with anyone; I'm just using it as an example.



I might feel compassion for him - that doesn't mean I could trust him again.



A spouse is someone who has made promises, before God and witnesses, to love and be faithful to you. If THEY choose to break that contract and those vows, who says that forgiveness means that you have to welcome them back into your home, and later, bed?
And supposing they had left you for 5 years and then THEY wanted a divorce? I don't know about where you are, but in the UK someone can be divorced after 5 years, even without their consent.



I haven't posted in that many forgiveness threads, so you can hardly say that I make every such topic about abuse.
To ask forgiveness means that you have done something wrong, to, or against, another person. A person can abuse someone else's good nature, take advantage of them, bad mouth them or ruin their character/reputation - or simply cause hurt by making assumptions, false accusations or telling lies about them.



If he talked to me, admitted he had a problem and wanted help for his sexual addiction because he didn't want to cheat on me - sure.
If he just went off, saying "it's not my fault; it's an illness" and didn't talk to me, or a doctor or counsellor, or tell me what he was doing - probably not.
And it would depend on whether he wanted help or whether he only confessed because he got found out.



I think that I might well be able to say to him, "I forgive you for cheating on me, and now understand that it was due to an illness/addiction." I think I could show my forgiveness, and care for him, by getting him counselling and the help he needed. That is very different from saying, "it's ok; here's your door key back and what time will you be home tonight?"



In the above scenario might well have a relationship with him as a friend afterwards. That doesn't mean I would be obliged to stay married to him; to put up with his infidelities and ignore the fact that I didn't trust him. If I did that, it would be unlikely that I COULD forgive properly, because I would see him constantly, be reminded of what he had done, and might do again, and keep re-living my hurt and his wrongdoing.



I disagree.
Forgiveness, I believe, means not holding someone's sin against them; constantly telling others how much you have been hurt - "poor me" - and refusing to think of ways of getting revenge on the one who's hurt you.
If someone had robbed you and gone to prison, it would mean accepting that they had done their time, and not making them pay over and above what the law had decided was fair.



So if someone hits you; let them do it again? If someone steals your jewellery, run after them and make sure they have your bank card too?



Our righteousness DOES exceed that of the Pharisees - Jesus was made sin for us so that we could become the righteousness of God, 2 Corinthians 5:21.
Pharisees - Jews - do not accept this, nor that Yeshua was the Messiah.

We cannot become righteous, be born again or enter the kingdom of heaven unless we accept Christ, are forgiven by him and live in him.

One reason I've posted so strongly on this topic is that I *have* been exactly in this situation of being cheated on and abandoned in a marriage relationship. I had no clue until suddenly he wanted to be gone after 15 years relationship. I was incredibly hurt by the whole ordeal and I can't say that even now there are no effects from all the trauma of that experience.

In hindsight, I know that as much as it hurt for him to be gone, it would have been much, much worse had he come back as my trust in him was completely destroyed. I didn't get vengeful. I didn't go on the internet and start blaming all men for what happened to me. In fact, I spent more time with God and started going back to church more regularly and got involved in a small bible study group who gave me pastoral care and some help with moving.

That's how you deal with these sorts of traumas. You do what you need to do to protect yourself, physically, mentally, financially, etc., and then you work on *yourself*, not go around lashing out at other people who are innocent of the whole affair.

 

[RDKirk]

why does she need to be protected from exposure to the evils of the world, while its seems its believed that the husband doesn't need to be protected?

Is she somehow more fragile mentally and emotionally, and needs to be protected or else she will crack like an egg?

In that case, actually yes.

But the results will be hidden for a while for political reasons.

 

[RDKirk]

I find it funny how when you give your self to some one you are giving them ownership to them, you did this your self, but some how it is property.

Property is something you bought or made, A spouse is someone you married and should be held with the highest respect over all property.

Ownership has nothing to do with property.

I would rather be cared for to the point of ownership .

Ownership has everything to do with property. You can't just make up your own meanings for words and expect agreement.

And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that He who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with Him. -- Ephesians 6

There is only One who owns us all. Any of the rest of us are merely assigned as stewards over others...and all stewards will be held terribly and awfully accountable for the well-being of all under his stewardship.

 

[ms.smith]

I don't own my husband and he doesn't own me. We willingly and freely took each other as spouses, not as property owned. We joined together as one, not as owners of each other.

Anyway, that out of the way.

When we met and married, I was finishing school and he was in the middle. I was the breadwinner when we were first married while he finished school. We had children soon, I went back to work after our first, between my husband (who worked part-time during school) and his mother, our child was cared for at home. When my second was born, my husband took a full-time job and I moved to be the full-time parent (I am no longer using the term "stay at home" mom/dad/parent, we don't define any other caregiver by the location of their work - every heard of a "sit at desk" or "works from cubicle" accountant? me neither). He has been the breadwinner while I was the full-time parent since the birth of our second child, and through the birth of our third child, who is almost two years old.

Financially speaking, we are struggling. His degree and work experience don't lead him to a fulfilling job that pays enough to support our family. He is in danger of becoming depressed over this, and he misses a lot of our children's lives. I have a more marketable degree, higher education level, and professional certifications that make it a lot easier for me to find a higher paying job with better hours. I don't mind work, at all. I was blessed to be able to find a degree path in college that I thoroughly enjoyed (he struggled with this).

Anyway, next Monday I am going back to work and my husband is going to be a full-time parent and housekeeper. We're trying it. I do think it is important that the children have a parent at home while they are still young (two are under K age). If and when they are all old enough, we will make the decision whether to continue homeschooling with a full-time parent in the home, or DH will also work and we'll send the children to a Christian school.

I think I would be doing a disservice to my family to a) insist that I, because I am a woman am the only one capable of caring for the children. When they were breastfeeding, I do feel like it should be me. Beyond that, I think that the children need their father as much as their mother. b) deny my family the financial security that I could easily provide, with fewer hours and less stress to the family. Insisting that my husband works longer hours, or taking a job that stresses him because of more money only, when I could easily earn the wages we need, that is not what is right for our family.

 

[lsume]

WWII encouraged the concept of a woman having a work life for some period of time before marriage, rather than being married in her teens.

But working wives only started becoming prevalent in the late 60s. By that time, the global economic supremacy that the US had enjoyed after WWII had begun to crumble. Germany and Japan had fully recovered from the war and had become global competitors again.

The value of labor took a heavy beating during that period--partially covered in the public consciousness by other events such as the Vietnam War and Civil Rights changes. Wives went to work because they had to as their husbands' earning power began to plummet.

Most people don't realize that if wives hadn't started working in the late 60s the economy would have collapsed. As it was, President Nixon still too extreme economic measures, such as taking US currency completely off the gold standard and allowing it to float against the value of other world currencies, the "petrodollar" deal with Saudi Arabia to prop up the value of the dollar, and even the wage and price freeze.

Image the president today ordering all businesses in the US to freeze their wages and prices. But that's what Nixon did--the situation was that extreme.

I took great advantage of the price freeze. By God’s Grace my wife and I were able to purchase a new car made in Japan that was fuel efficient before the gas prices went crazy. I know I ordered it stripped. No radio and standard transmission but reliable. As I recall, we paid about $1,800 out the door or close.

 

[tuliplane]

I'm a divorced man who is alone for almost 5 years, and We have women who work here and dress productive sometimes and let me tell you, Its not fair to me or her husband that there is even a little chance We could get together.

Most all adultery cases arrive from working class people who meet at work.

I stay away from these types of people, but the rest of the world well, they do not.

Its a sad truth and a truth never talked about.

Before women hit the work force, not many adultery cases going on, there where some, here and there.

But now? its ram-pit.

If your a single woman its fine, go out and date, get to know each other and get married, but if your married, and go out to work, In this day, Its almost asking to get a divorce.

Unless your very devoted and forgiving, its not a good idea to get a job out side of your marriage in a busy work force type of Job.

I'm sorry this happened to you. It's heartbreaking and angering to even imagine a spouse leaving for someone else. However, it does seem unrealistic to expect only single people in the workplace. I think the root cause is really the person's heart and motives when committing such an act. There are temptations all around us; people should learn to fight temptation with the strength of Christ instead of shelter themselves and hide from it. I am not saying to go waltzing into a club, but I do think it's an issue if a Christian fears they are going to cave into temptation in everyday life...that's when they need to actively make the choice to stand against evil.

 

[tuliplane]

It's sad if that's the case where you live.
But I can assure you that I know many families where the women work and they remain happily married - my whole family, for a start.
If a woman wants to commit adultery, she will. Today, we have Facebook, mobile phones, snapchat and so on; someone could be a stay-at-home wife and mother, and still be unfaithful. I think it's perfectly possible for a woman to go to work, have a male boss and/or male colleagues, and remain faithful and happily married.

Exactly! It's a heart and motives issue. Also, I don't have statistics in front of me, but I think men are more likely the ones who cheat...should we start saying men need to be staying at home so as to avoid temptation? No!! One needs to evaluate their heart and make an active choice to stand against temptation, for as you said, it really is all around us, workplace or not!

 

[tuliplane]

Progressive Christians? It was Jesus Christ who taught that there is no longer male nor female, that all are equal in God's eyes.

I believe we are all of equal worth in God's eyes, but I believe He created males and females with key differences to reflect His glory.

 

[tuliplane]

Fully agree here.

Husband and I have agreed that, when we plan to have our child, I will step aside from work and raise the child. I don't think I could work and raise a child at the same time.

And again I remind everyone here that my husband is my master and not some divorced guy who is taking Scripture out of context. I submit to my husband and my father and pastors, not some random guy on the Internet. God never instructed women to submit to every man in the universe, only those in authority over them. So when my husband allows me to work, HE is the authority, not some guy on the Internet here.

Do you think it could be a healthy decision for a mother to work, say a part-time job a couple days a week if it doesn't interfere with her family and helps contribute in some way?

 

[tuliplane]

why does she need to be protected from exposure to the evils of the world, while its seems its believed that the husband doesn't need to be protected?

Is she somehow more fragile mentally and emotionally, and needs to be protected or else she will crack like an egg?

Well I was taught from a very early age how "women are the weaker vessel"

 

[tuliplane]

It's been mentioned before, but I'll mention it again:

The central issue is not so much "women" working outside the home or even "wives" working outside the home. People who hold that women as a gender must not work outside the home do not find validation of that extreme position in scripture.

The central issue is "mothers with young children" working outside the home.

What do you think of mothers who work part-time in a way that doesn't interfere with their role as a mother and able to contribute a bit financially?

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Yes, if you bothered reading what I already wrote I said that it was the industrial revolution that started the custom of men leaving the home to work.

Not just men, but women as well, and initially even children. Is it OK for children to work outside the home?

 

[Bladerunner]

Hopefully.
Or it might be seen as a "clique"; a separated group out of touch with reality.
Jesus got alongside people and started from where they were. We are in the world but not of it, and it's not wrong to have a job/career working alongside non Christians.



No idea - I don't even know that I agree with that interpretation.



That's what being in community means - sharing possessions. That's what they did in Acts. (Though not computers, obviously.)



Money has to come from somewhere.
And I think it rather a sweeping statement to say "most believers ......". Worrying about money to pay the bills/look after the family is not materialism; and how do you know most believers do this anyway?
Possibly there's more temptation in the West, but elsewhere?



Most of us do; it's called a family.



We can be one with other believers without living with them. Living in the same building/commune doesn't guarantee unity anyway.



I don't know what any of this means.
The early church lived in the world, even though they were in a community. They went to the synagogues and to the temple, they met in other people's houses. Paul went to places where other gods were worshipped - like Ephesus and Athens - and founded churches there, in the middle of them. In Corinth, he worked as a tent maker to get money to support himself, Acts of the Apostles 18:3.

Strong in Him...there are a lot of women in the work force that have to be. The American dream is not like it used to be. It now takes more money than most twosomes can earn.

Just make sure you are working for all the right reason(s). If you were not, I believe God would have already let you know.

Have a great day

Blade

 

[Strong in Him]

Strong in Him...there are a lot of women in the work force that have to be. The American dream is not like it used to be. It now takes more money than most twosomes can earn.

Yes, I think a number of married women/mothers work from necessity. 2 of my sisters-in-law went back to work after the birth of their sons, but would have happily stayed at home if they could have.

Just make sure you are working for all the right reason(s). If you were not, I believe God would have already let you know.

I don't have a paid job, sadly; I do voluntary work.

Have a great day

Thank you; you too.

 

[Tone]

The license is a ownership license, that is what it is for.

Maybe even ownership by the state...

For the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does; likewise the husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does.

The Husband rules over his wife's body and the wife rules over her husband's body. I can see an ownership here, but it may simply be a sexual ownership.

 

[Tone]

1 Corinthians 6
"19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body."

Yes, ultimately, He owns our bodies, however, the stewardship of our bodies belongs to our mates. I believe that we are to share everything else (mind, will, emotions, imaginations) in so much, as we are united under Messiah. But again, the bodies in marriage have the added dimension of possession (one flesh)...I believe.

*Then again...I've never been...so...

 

[Strong in Him]

The Husband rules over his wife's body and the wife rules over her husband's body.

I am pretty sure that that would have been a shocking thing to say in those days - that a woman, who have few rights - could rule over her husband's body. I think Paul is probably saying that husband and wife are equal; neither having more power or rights than the other.
I think also that in some places the first part of this verse is taken to mean that a husband may do what he likes to his wife - i.e rape and sex on demand - because he owns and rules over her body. I've no doubt such people ignore the 2nd part of the verse.

But it's hard to see how my husband rules over my body; if at all.
He is not able to prevent physical changes, or if it goes wrong. He wasn't around when I decided to get my ears pierced or my hair permed or coloured. He is now, but he's not bothered. If I ever decided to get a tattoo, I might tell him; I wouldn't ask him for permission. When I needed surgery, I needed it; it wasn't a case of 'does he agree?'
Do I rule over his body? No, and he doesn't believe otherwise - he completely ignored suggestions that we could diet together as we both needed to lose weight. The only thing that made him decide to do it was a suggestion from his doctor, shortly after he'd had a pacemaker fitted.

 

[Archivist]

Not just men, but women as well, and initially even children. Is it OK for children to work outside the home?

No, of course not.