Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mike male and female according to Gods plan has always been ONENESS. It was man that changed Gods plan and promote that change instead of promoting ONENESS as they should have.
They are to come along side one-another, not dominate.
Mike male and female according to Gods plan has always been ONENESS. It was man that changed Gods plan and promote that change instead of promoting ONENESS as they should have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerwade
They are to come along side one-another, not dominate.
I don't disagree with this.
I don't see male leadership and "domination" as being the same thing, but it seems Jerwade does.
I also believe that a man can be the leader, while at the same time coming along "side by side" with his wife. I don't believe that there has to be a dichotomy there.
Jerwade, let's picture a traditional nuclear family consisting of a husband, wife, and children. If the husband assumes the leadership role in his family, do you see that as necessarily being "domination"?
I don't see male leadership and "domination" as being the same thing, but it seems Jerwade does.
I also believe that a man can be the leader, while at the same time coming along "side by side" with his wife. I don't believe that there has to be a dichotomy there.
Jerwade, let's picture a traditional nuclear family consisting of a husband, wife, and children. If the husband assumes the leadership role in his family, do you see that as necessarily being "domination"?
Woman was created from man and for man, to be a helper suitable for him. It is the proper order of creation that a woman is to be subject to her husband with respect to authority.
I don't see male leadership and "domination" as being the same thing, but it seems Jerwade does.
I also believe that a man can be the leader, while at the same time coming along "side by side" with his wife. I don't believe that there has to be a dichotomy there.
Jerwade, let's picture a traditional nuclear family consisting of a husband, wife, and children. If the husband assumes the leadership role in his family, do you see that as necessarily being "domination"?
Mike the male and female where it talks about the male being the head of the house etc. is a spiritual principle. Christ is the head of the house and we are to follow His leadership. That is why the woman is to be quite and listen to the man, that man being Christ.
It is the male ego that demands that He is the head of the house.
Mike the male and female where it talks about the male being the head of the house etc. is a spiritual principle. Christ is the head of the house and we are to follow His leadership. That is why the woman is to be quite and listen to the man, that man being Christ.
While I don't deny the spiritual application of the principle of male headship, it actually is literally ordered into Creation and is a practical command.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pneuma
It is the male ego that demands that He is the head of the house.
In some cases, certainly this may be so. If a man has to constantly remind his wife that he's in charge, he's not much of a leader, is he?
Human failings and abuses do not invalidate God's created order, however.
I didn't realize that God had male genitalia? Anymore than the woman needs to be the cook?
Or, dress a certain way to appease the man? A bit sexiest in my book - if you think about it.
While I don't deny the spiritual application of the principle of male headship, it actually is literally ordered into Creation and is a practical command.
.
No it is not mike that is why the male and female are one and there is no male or female in Christ.
Quote:
In some cases, certainly this may be so. If a man has to constantly remind his wife that he's in charge, he's not much of a leader, is he?
Human failings and abuses do not invalidate God's created order, however
No it is not mike that is why the male and female are one and there is no male or female in Christ.
Male and female are "one" in the sense that they become one flesh and create new Images of God.
You're taking Galatians 3:28 too far.
Paul is talking about the New Covenant in contrast to the Old.
In the Old Covenant, there very much was "Jew or Gentile", "male or female". There was a real distinction in terms of who the Covenant applied to and how it was applied.
In the Old Covenant, its sign (circumcision) only applied to males; now in the New Covenant, its sign (baptism) is applied to all. Also, the Old Covenant was only open to the children of Israel; the New Covenant is open to all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
